Re: GMC chair’s reply to Nick Ross’s second letter regarding Hadiza Bawa-Garba
Since 2016, Sir Terence Stephenson has "discussed with the Health Secretary the creation of a 'safe space' in healthcare and a form of legal privilege, akin to the airline industry....but parliament has chosen not to enact that. Until it does, we remain bound by UK law as it stands".
Parliament and its laws have clearly fallen flat on their face in relation to the vital principle that medical professionals and those working in the NHS cannot themselves practice safely, if the spaces in which they work are unsafe, unsound and unsupportive. This is an incovenient truth; yet, if parliamentarians cannot enact laws that ensure such spaces are mandated, then we are clearly all negligently served. The airline industry itself paid for a 10-year redesign that transformed air traffic control into the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and flight safety across the UK for all those using flying through our airspace was rigorously optimised.
As doctors, we compulsorily pay the GMC to provide our 'ticket' to practise, so surely we should expect this organisation to key to ensuring that our interventional 'flights' and 'flight deck' working contexts are safe.
I am now looking to the GMC's officers to address that "but" in the Chairman's letter and give this issue its undivided and unremitting attention in the face of whatever objections our parliamentarians might throw.
And, for the record, doctors are members of the public too.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
06 March 2018
Christopher L Manning
Retired GP. Convenor Action for NHS Workforce Wellbeing
Rapid Response:
Re: GMC chair’s reply to Nick Ross’s second letter regarding Hadiza Bawa-Garba
Since 2016, Sir Terence Stephenson has "discussed with the Health Secretary the creation of a 'safe space' in healthcare and a form of legal privilege, akin to the airline industry....but parliament has chosen not to enact that. Until it does, we remain bound by UK law as it stands".
Parliament and its laws have clearly fallen flat on their face in relation to the vital principle that medical professionals and those working in the NHS cannot themselves practice safely, if the spaces in which they work are unsafe, unsound and unsupportive. This is an incovenient truth; yet, if parliamentarians cannot enact laws that ensure such spaces are mandated, then we are clearly all negligently served. The airline industry itself paid for a 10-year redesign that transformed air traffic control into the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and flight safety across the UK for all those using flying through our airspace was rigorously optimised.
As doctors, we compulsorily pay the GMC to provide our 'ticket' to practise, so surely we should expect this organisation to key to ensuring that our interventional 'flights' and 'flight deck' working contexts are safe.
I am now looking to the GMC's officers to address that "but" in the Chairman's letter and give this issue its undivided and unremitting attention in the face of whatever objections our parliamentarians might throw.
And, for the record, doctors are members of the public too.
Competing interests: No competing interests