Facts should be made public in cases of voluntary erasure, say MPs

Doctors who opt for voluntary erasure from the medical register during fitness to practise proceedings should have the full details of their case made public, the parliamentary select committee on health has said in its accountability hearing with the General Medical Council.

This provision would ensure that voluntary erasure is not “a form of sweeping things under the carpet” and that the process includes an element of professional accountability, said Stephen Dorrell, Conservative MP for Charnwood and the committee’s chairman.

“Voluntary erasure should be relatively easy, but it shouldn’t cut across the requirement to regulate professional practice,” said Mr Dorrell. “Otherwise you get to the point where there’s professional misconduct and the doctor removes themselves from the register, which is fine from the point of the protection of future patients, but it doesn’t achieve the other objective here, which is that professionals ought to be held accountable.”

In cases where the doctor’s name has been erased by mutual agreement, the sanction accepted by the doctor and a description of the issues would be published in full on the GMC’s website.

The Health Committee highlighted the cases of a breast surgeon, Owen Gilmore, and cancer surgeon, Nigel Sacks, both of whom opted for voluntary erasure rather than face a public hearing over serious misconduct charges. In such instances, erasure before full examination of the facts could cut short review of the doctor’s practice and mean that the complainant “never gets closure,” said Rosie Cooper, a committee member and Labour MP for West Lancashire.

The GMC has now confirmed that voluntary erasure would amount to a guilty plea. However, the Health Committee urged the GMC to ensure that turning voluntary erasure into an admission of guilt does not have the “perverse impact” of reducing the numbers seeking it, which would erode protection of the public.