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.
Richard Wakeford’s article ‘Who gets struck off’ should bring the GMC out of their state of somnolence. The GMC were empowered to oversee the professional conduct of doctors and discipline those who are found wanting. Soon they will start establishing doctor’s Fitness to Practice and revalidation.
It is inconceivable that the GMC had not analysed data which was vital for ensuring the quality of doctors allowed to practice medicine in this country. Perhaps the GMC was more conscious of political correctness than the safety of British citizens. The table in the study relates the percentages of doctors suspended or erased to the country where their medical degree was obtained. Suspension and erasure rates are higher with non UK graduates. Rather unexpectedly France and countries in the European (EU) are within the top twenty countries with the higher rates.
The purpose of these figures is to take the necessary remedial action. Inherent in the higher figures for the non UK graduate is the belief that this is perhaps attributable to the poorer quality of medical education. This however might not be necessarily true. It is encouraging to note that despite the obsession to political correctness by the GMC in recent years, studies done in the past have shown a correlation between adultery and doctors who qualified in England and alcohol related offences with those who qualified in Ireland. If the GMC is serious in its determination to undertake remedial action, the figures should be further analysed to relate the nature of the professional misconduct to the various countries of origin or ethnic groups.
As with the correlation of alcohol related offences with doctors who qualified in Ireland, it is not beyond imagination that doctors qualifying from countries with widespread practices of bribery and corruption may have a larger representation in such offences. Sexual misbehaviour may predominate in other groups.
If the GMC is to undertake proper regulation of the medical practitioners and identify and remedy the causes of professional misconduct perhaps it should gather the evidence for to enable targeted action.
The profession, the public and the politicians expect the GMC to act in the best interest of the patient and the profession. I have not had success with direct requests made to the GMC. Will the GMC complement Richard Wakeford’s labours? Who knows what further surprises it might contain.
Re: Who gets struck off?
Richard Wakeford’s article ‘Who gets struck off’ should bring the GMC out of their state of somnolence. The GMC were empowered to oversee the professional conduct of doctors and discipline those who are found wanting. Soon they will start establishing doctor’s Fitness to Practice and revalidation.
It is inconceivable that the GMC had not analysed data which was vital for ensuring the quality of doctors allowed to practice medicine in this country. Perhaps the GMC was more conscious of political correctness than the safety of British citizens. The table in the study relates the percentages of doctors suspended or erased to the country where their medical degree was obtained. Suspension and erasure rates are higher with non UK graduates. Rather unexpectedly France and countries in the European (EU) are within the top twenty countries with the higher rates.
The purpose of these figures is to take the necessary remedial action. Inherent in the higher figures for the non UK graduate is the belief that this is perhaps attributable to the poorer quality of medical education. This however might not be necessarily true. It is encouraging to note that despite the obsession to political correctness by the GMC in recent years, studies done in the past have shown a correlation between adultery and doctors who qualified in England and alcohol related offences with those who qualified in Ireland. If the GMC is serious in its determination to undertake remedial action, the figures should be further analysed to relate the nature of the professional misconduct to the various countries of origin or ethnic groups.
As with the correlation of alcohol related offences with doctors who qualified in Ireland, it is not beyond imagination that doctors qualifying from countries with widespread practices of bribery and corruption may have a larger representation in such offences. Sexual misbehaviour may predominate in other groups.
If the GMC is to undertake proper regulation of the medical practitioners and identify and remedy the causes of professional misconduct perhaps it should gather the evidence for to enable targeted action.
The profession, the public and the politicians expect the GMC to act in the best interest of the patient and the profession. I have not had success with direct requests made to the GMC. Will the GMC complement Richard Wakeford’s labours? Who knows what further surprises it might contain.
Competing interests: No related interests