Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
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.”