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.
Whilst justice has finally been done, it is surprising and worrying that the judge rejected "two attempts by the defence to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that, under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, a doctor is exempt from prosecution if a surgical procedure was carried out on a woman in labour or after childbirth and was medically necessary"[1]. Given the uncomplicated clinical facts of this case and express exemptions under the said 2003 Act, it is indeed shocking that a trainee doctor had been selectively subjected to such horrendous ordeal. The swift exoneration of Dr Dharmasena by a jury “in 30 minutes”[1], also suggests the fundamental legal weaknesses of this prosecution; the resulting enormous cost to the taxpayer is another matter. Only Dr Dharmasena will know the true scale of personal trauma that he had to endure. Hope, the GMC will now deliver its ‘regulatory justice’ speedily so that this innocent doctor could properly begin his personal and professional recovery.
In the light of this judgment and clear statutory exemptions (as mentioned above), it is only fair that those at the Whittington Hospital who chose to refer this matter to the police, reflect on their decision and review policies accordingly, so that no other doctor will have to face a similar plight.
Re: Surgeon acquitted of carrying out female genital mutilation in a prosecution criticised by obstetricians
Whilst justice has finally been done, it is surprising and worrying that the judge rejected "two attempts by the defence to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that, under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, a doctor is exempt from prosecution if a surgical procedure was carried out on a woman in labour or after childbirth and was medically necessary"[1]. Given the uncomplicated clinical facts of this case and express exemptions under the said 2003 Act, it is indeed shocking that a trainee doctor had been selectively subjected to such horrendous ordeal. The swift exoneration of Dr Dharmasena by a jury “in 30 minutes”[1], also suggests the fundamental legal weaknesses of this prosecution; the resulting enormous cost to the taxpayer is another matter. Only Dr Dharmasena will know the true scale of personal trauma that he had to endure. Hope, the GMC will now deliver its ‘regulatory justice’ speedily so that this innocent doctor could properly begin his personal and professional recovery.
In the light of this judgment and clear statutory exemptions (as mentioned above), it is only fair that those at the Whittington Hospital who chose to refer this matter to the police, reflect on their decision and review policies accordingly, so that no other doctor will have to face a similar plight.
References
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/05/cps-chief-alison-saunders...
Competing interests: No competing interests