Serious concerns about GMC investigation and hearing
Dear Editor,
Once again, Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA) finds it
necessary to express grave concern at the reported standards of
investigation and prosecution at the General Medical Council (GMC).
We note the report by Clare Dyer to the effect that the GMC recently
presented expert evidence to one of its Fitness to Practise Panels which
was based on incomplete documentation. [1]. This was in spite of the reported
fact that the GMC’s expert had drawn its attention to “an absence of
documentation.”
We also saw the previous report, published during the hearing. [2]
This included the statement:
“…the GMC’s proceedings, which relate to a case in 2002, are a
warning to those who regularly give evidence in children’s cases that they
should adhere strictly to Home Office and Department of Health guidance on
interviewing child witnesses.”
Discussions with medical and legal colleagues reveal that this
guidance is not widely known. When asked for it by one of our members,
with reference to the BMJ report, the Department of Health referred to
three documents, none of which appears to be the guidance in question;
indeed two of them were published after the incident in question. The Home
Office did not supply the guidance and referred the query to the Ministry
of Justice, which has also not supplied the guidance. If these government
departments cannot supply their own guidance, why does the GMC expect
doctors to follow it?
We consider that all doctors whose livelihood depends on GMC
registration deserve better than this from their professional body. In
particular, this shabby investigation and prosecution by the GMC is likely
further to damage confidence in the GMC among doctors who undertake child
protection work.
[1] C. Dyer, ‘GMC clears child psychiatrist accused of alleged
misconduct as expert witness’ BMJ 2009;339:b4999 23 November 2009
[2] C. Dyer, ‘Psychiatrist failed to follow guidance on interviewing child
witnesses, GMC hears’ BMJ 2009 339: b4669 11 November 2009
Competing interests:
We are members of PACA, Professionals against Child Abuse
Rapid Response:
Serious concerns about GMC investigation and hearing
Dear Editor,
Once again, Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA) finds it
necessary to express grave concern at the reported standards of
investigation and prosecution at the General Medical Council (GMC).
We note the report by Clare Dyer to the effect that the GMC recently
presented expert evidence to one of its Fitness to Practise Panels which
was based on incomplete documentation. [1]. This was in spite of the reported
fact that the GMC’s expert had drawn its attention to “an absence of
documentation.”
We also saw the previous report, published during the hearing. [2]
This included the statement:
“…the GMC’s proceedings, which relate to a case in 2002, are a
warning to those who regularly give evidence in children’s cases that they
should adhere strictly to Home Office and Department of Health guidance on
interviewing child witnesses.”
Discussions with medical and legal colleagues reveal that this
guidance is not widely known. When asked for it by one of our members,
with reference to the BMJ report, the Department of Health referred to
three documents, none of which appears to be the guidance in question;
indeed two of them were published after the incident in question. The Home
Office did not supply the guidance and referred the query to the Ministry
of Justice, which has also not supplied the guidance. If these government
departments cannot supply their own guidance, why does the GMC expect
doctors to follow it?
We consider that all doctors whose livelihood depends on GMC
registration deserve better than this from their professional body. In
particular, this shabby investigation and prosecution by the GMC is likely
further to damage confidence in the GMC among doctors who undertake child
protection work.
[1] C. Dyer, ‘GMC clears child psychiatrist accused of alleged
misconduct as expert witness’ BMJ 2009;339:b4999 23 November 2009
[2] C. Dyer, ‘Psychiatrist failed to follow guidance on interviewing child
witnesses, GMC hears’ BMJ 2009 339: b4669 11 November 2009
Competing interests:
We are members of PACA, Professionals against Child Abuse
Competing interests: No competing interests