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.
The author makes a laudable effort at outlining the discriminatory policies of the GMC. Unfortunately, there is a failure in the article to summarise the law at present. There maybe an element of denial relating to the law set down in this case. Nevertheless, the law is the law.
Collins J ruled that it was lawful for the GMC to rule differently on two individuals given the same facts. This was presented in a statement by in court by the judge. Moreover, by comparison even the courts agreed that it was acceptable to be more lenient to a Caucasian doctor when one compares this case to that of R v General Medical Council ex Parte Remedy UK.
In conclusion, the courts have sanctioned leniency for Caucasian doctors and essential given the GMC discretion to do what it wishes.
Given the above, one can hardly now blame the GMC for the failure of the medical establishment to challenge the notion of equality. There is no equality at the GMC. Until the law changes, there will be no equality. This has been demonstrated by the long tortuous journey of "racism" in the GMC procedures. Obviously, the GMC doesn't call it racism or discrimination. It refers to it as "discretion".
Competing interests:
Litigant in R v General Medical Council ex Parte Pal
The Law and the GMC
Dear Editor,
The author makes a laudable effort at outlining the discriminatory policies of the GMC. Unfortunately, there is a failure in the article to summarise the law at present. There maybe an element of denial relating to the law set down in this case. Nevertheless, the law is the law.
Collins J ruled that it was lawful for the GMC to rule differently on two individuals given the same facts. This was presented in a statement by in court by the judge. Moreover, by comparison even the courts agreed that it was acceptable to be more lenient to a Caucasian doctor when one compares this case to that of R v General Medical Council ex Parte Remedy UK.
In conclusion, the courts have sanctioned leniency for Caucasian doctors and essential given the GMC discretion to do what it wishes.
Given the above, one can hardly now blame the GMC for the failure of the medical establishment to challenge the notion of equality. There is no equality at the GMC. Until the law changes, there will be no equality. This has been demonstrated by the long tortuous journey of "racism" in the GMC procedures. Obviously, the GMC doesn't call it racism or discrimination. It refers to it as "discretion".
Competing interests: Litigant in R v General Medical Council ex Parte Pal