“Dispatches” programme was painstakingly researched and did not attract writ for defamation

EDITOR—It was my programme in March 1996 about the Bristol heart surgery tragedy, for Channel 4's current affairs series Dispatches, that prompted the General Medical Council (GMC) to investigate what, it subsequently became clear, was the medical scandal of the century. Since then I and my colleagues have continued to report on these cases. I wish to reply to Dunn's allegations about media reporting of the tragedy; I am, presumably, one of those whom he pronounces guilty of “using a sustained stream of biased, misleading, and often inaccurate information.”1

According to Dunn, bereaved parents should direct their grief and anger over the death of their children towards people like me, rather than the surgeons who operated on the children and have since been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. “Shoot the messenger” is the age old response of those who dislike the message.

The Dispatches programme was researched painstakingly over many months to ensure the accuracy of the story it told. Had it been “misleading” or “inaccurate” it would surely have attracted a writ for defamation from one or more of the three doctors who were named. However, no writ followed the original programme or any of the four documentaries and dozens of shorter reports that HTV has produced since.

Dunn complains that the views of the three doctors have received inadequate attention in the media. I have personally written many letters to James Wisheart, Janardin Dhasmana, and John Roylance, seeking to report their views. None of them has taken up my offer, which remains open. Their refusal to contribute notwithstanding, HTV reported the defence they made at the GMC. Interviews with lay supporters—which we have also broadcast—are, ultimately, no substitute for the doctors' own words.

It is for the GMC to defend its disciplinary practices, but I would point out that only one of the three doctors found guilty of serious professional misconduct, Dr Roylance, has exercised his right to appeal to the Privy Council. If Mr Wisheart or Mr Dhasmana had genuine reason to think that he had been treated “unfairly” by his peers, as Dunn suggests, surely he would have followed suit.

In revealing and reporting this serious lapse by the medical profession, HTV and its colleagues have illuminated an area of life that has been dark for far too long. Dunn should look closer to home for people to blame if the public does not like what we showed them and demands reform.

GMC made grave error in taking the case on

EDITOR—I felt honoured to be elected to the General Medical Council (GMC) and to contribute to the formulation of Good Medical Practice.1 I admired Sir Donald Irvine's enunciation of clear principles as he steered this through the council as chair of the standards committee.

It was therefore with surprise and growing uneasiness that I watched the events of the Bristol case unfold. It is difficult to comment on a judgment of the professional conduct committee without having read the evidence, but I found it hard to understand how the committee could be absolutely sure that the doctors were guilty of serious professional misconduct. Doctors often disagree about the best method of management. Is Sir Donald sending the right message to the public in this complex area? As a member of the GMC it seemed wrong to criticise, so I did nothing at the time, but my conscience troubled me. So many people whom I did not know supported me when I was the victim of an injustice, so why was I silent? Peter Dunn was one of my expert paediatric witnesses during the inquiry into my competence in 1986,2 and I respect his integrity and judgment.3

Doctors are trained to look at the facts, weigh the evidence, and reach a conclusion about how best to treat a patient. In many aspects of our work there is not enough scientific evidence on which to make a proper judgment, and we do our best. Dealing with uncertainty is part of our everyday experience.

Just as doctors disagree, so do lawyers. But surely in a case as sensitive and difficult as this it would have been prudent for the president to step down as chair of the professional conduct committee if, as Dunn states, the defence lawyers accused him of bias.

I think that the GMC made a grave error in taking on this case and in arranging to try Dr John Roylance at the same time as the two cardiac surgeons. How could he be guilty of anything until a decision had been reached about their conduct?

The perception among many people, medical and lay, is that these doctors were made scapegoats as a way of satisfying the government that doctors were capable of regulating themselves as a profession. If this perception is correct then a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred and incalculable damage been done to self regulation, the medical profession, and the parents whose children were patients in Bristol.

I believe in self regulation, in professional integrity, and in providing a good service to patients. Our credibility will be undermined if we lose our scientific objectivity and sacrifice our dedicated colleagues to satisfy ill founded fears of some members of the public and the short term aims of politicians.

Committee of inquiry should include a cardiac surgeon

EDITOR—Dunn's article highlighting many concerns that follow from the Wisheart affair is a breath of fresh air, though the questions raised will not make the work of the Kennedy inquiry any easier.1 The hype inspired by the media proved a disservice to the profession and may well have clouded the judgment of the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council (GMC). So far the previously vociferous media have ignored Dunn's article, and it would seem that they do not wish to challenge their earlier often erroneous comments with the facts.

I hope that the Kennedy committee of inquiry will include a cardiac surgeon; if it does not the problems beset by the professional conduct committee will be compounded.