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.
I could not help comparing the treatment of these two colleagues - both by the journalist and the GMC since the two cases are next to each other and appear on the same page. We are all supposed to be treated equally without bias or prejudice, right?
The article says of Dr Ademola that "she qualified in Nigeria in 1997" but we are not given any such details about Dr Boyle. What subliminal message is the journalist giving, and what is the relevance to the case?
The tribunal found that Dr Boyle "had not acted dishonestly", but he wrote prescriptions for himself using colleagues', and patients' names and worked in his private practice when on call at his hospital. These actions were not provoked, but were deliberate and by choice. The NHS rota was not under his control, but he certainly had control over the scheduling of his private patients. Dr Ademola's action on the other hand was provoked. So the GMC made excuses for Dr Boyle so as not to suspend him, but suspends Dr Ademola despite their own finding that her " misconduct was an isolated incident set against an otherwise unblemished career" , citing “the impressive array of testimonials that speak of you as a dedicated, capable and caring doctor.”
Re: Cardiologist convicted of presenting false prescription escapes suspension
I could not help comparing the treatment of these two colleagues - both by the journalist and the GMC since the two cases are next to each other and appear on the same page. We are all supposed to be treated equally without bias or prejudice, right?
The article says of Dr Ademola that "she qualified in Nigeria in 1997" but we are not given any such details about Dr Boyle. What subliminal message is the journalist giving, and what is the relevance to the case?
The tribunal found that Dr Boyle "had not acted dishonestly", but he wrote prescriptions for himself using colleagues', and patients' names and worked in his private practice when on call at his hospital. These actions were not provoked, but were deliberate and by choice. The NHS rota was not under his control, but he certainly had control over the scheduling of his private patients. Dr Ademola's action on the other hand was provoked. So the GMC made excuses for Dr Boyle so as not to suspend him, but suspends Dr Ademola despite their own finding that her " misconduct was an isolated incident set against an otherwise unblemished career" , citing “the impressive array of testimonials that speak of you as a dedicated, capable and caring doctor.”
What are we supposed to think?
Competing interests: No competing interests