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.
It is indeed mind boggling as to why the BMA as a doctors' trade union agreed with the Department of Health(DoH) to deprive "doctors of the longstanding right to have a lawyer act for them at a disciplinary hearing"[1].Whilst acknowledging(at para.34) that "The BMA was reluctant to give up the doctors' previous rights"[2],the Court of Appeal went on to say, "There appears to have been some 'horse-trading' or 'give and take' in respect of rights of representation and the other issues and in due course agreement was reached on a form of words".Though it has taken a disproportionately long time to reject a perverse policy of the DoH, many doctors could breath a sigh of relief that a fundamental right to be formally represented has now been restored.
In relation to Article 6,ECHR,the Appeal Court concluded(para.68),"In my view, in circumstances of this kind, it should imply such a right because the doctor is facing what is in effect a criminal charge, although it is being dealt with by disciplinary proceedings. The issues are virtually the same and, although the consequences of a finding of guilt cannot be the deprivation of liberty, they can be very serious"[2].
References
[1]Clare Dyer.
Judges overturn ruling that doctors in NHS disciplinary hearings cannot have lawyer
BMJ 2009; 339: b3062.
A Fundamental Right Restored
It is indeed mind boggling as to why the BMA as a doctors' trade union agreed with the Department of Health(DoH) to deprive "doctors of the longstanding right to have a lawyer act for them at a disciplinary hearing"[1].Whilst acknowledging(at para.34) that "The BMA was reluctant to give up the doctors' previous rights"[2],the Court of Appeal went on to say, "There appears to have been some 'horse-trading' or 'give and take' in respect of rights of representation and the other issues and in due course agreement was reached on a form of words".Though it has taken a disproportionately long time to reject a perverse policy of the DoH, many doctors could breath a sigh of relief that a fundamental right to be formally represented has now been restored.
In relation to Article 6,ECHR,the Appeal Court concluded(para.68),"In my view, in circumstances of this kind, it should imply such a right because the doctor is facing what is in effect a criminal charge, although it is being dealt with by disciplinary proceedings. The issues are virtually the same and, although the consequences of a finding of guilt cannot be the deprivation of liberty, they can be very serious"[2].
References
[1]Clare Dyer.
Judges overturn ruling that doctors in NHS disciplinary hearings cannot have lawyer
BMJ 2009; 339: b3062.
[2]Dr Kunal Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and The Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWCA Civ 789(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/789.html)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests