Coroner to ask GMC to check vulnerability of doctors it investigates
BMJ 2020; 368 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m835 (Published 02 March 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;368:m835
All rapid responses
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.
Dear Editor
I read this report with great sadness. A systemic failure has led to the suicide of a doctor fearing the loss of his livelihood, public disgrace and humiliation based on an unproven (and likely to be unfounded) allegation of sexual assault. What angered me the most was not the heavy-handed approach by the GMC and the police, or the communication failure of his senior managers, but the comments of the coroner.
In asking the GMC to ensure it asks referring agencies whether the doctor is vulnerable, she immediately shifts the blame for this doctor's death on his own undiagnosed vulnerabllity, exonerating all the public bodies that failed him so badly. This feeds into the expectation that as doctors we should be caring and compassionate with our patients, but “resilient” when dealing with extreme personal threats from a fractured system of regulation. All doctors are human and therefore vulnerable. The failure to appreciate this will inevitably lead to further tragic outcomes such as that suffered by Dr Suresh.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
This is a tragic storey, it is every overseas graduate nightmare. The GMC is fully aware of the impact of a referral to the GMC. They GMC produced a report 5 years ago. Doctors are not clear what progress the GMC made to protect doctors welfare and not end their life.
The silence of the Trust, the Police, the GMC and the family of the alleged victim is deafening. No wonder overseas doctors feel discarded by society
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
I was at the Coroner's Inquest. With regards to the GMC, the evidence before the inquest was that the GMC wrote to Dr Suresh to seek his work details and indicated that it would write to the organisations he worked for. The information it had about him and that it was likely to disseminate was an email from the police containing an allegation of serious sexual misconduct. It appears that there was little or no substance to the allegation, and the GMC itself had made no inquiry to establish its substance, but the threat to this doctor's reputation from the GMC's intention to disseminate this information was very obvious.
What troubles me is that the GMC has known of the impact its letter had on this doctor, yet, 22 months since his death, its response appears to have been limited to highlighting how polite the tone of its letter was. There seems to have been no effort to make changes to its procedures or learn any lesson.
The GMC's Fitness to Practise processes clearly have the potential to cause injury, perhaps in more ways than what happened in this case, but the GMC's inflexible approach and apparent resistance to learning even following this loss of a life is troubling.
Rajendra Chaudhary
www.ddpu.co.uk
Competing interests: I am supporter of the deceased's family.
Dear Editor
My personal ordeal of being investigate leads me to believe that anyone, especially foreign medical graduates are vulnerable. My perception, which I am still afflicted with, is that anyone referred to the GMC is expected to die or be professionally erased. I strongly believe that such referrers of Doctors to the GMC know that being referred is, in itself, is potentially fatal and thus they must bear the guilt. Until the GMC makes it mandatory that the instigator (s) of such referrals are themselves properly scrutinised, the GMC investigators may have (from their high moral mandate to ensure patient safety, unwittingly I suppose) become extra-judicial destroyers of beautiful but vulnerable lives, at least in a few cases.
During my ordeal, I had no professional support, and no income, up to minimum wage, for about 1 year (..) I so-called into perjury and considered suicide constantly. Thankfully, I had protective factors from being a completed suicide; my culture as well as a very solid family and faith network.
I still struggle, after more than 5 years; I lost the confidence and the will to progress to clinical decision-making grades. I am in mortal dread of another referral to the GMC by anyone who will create a hostile environment for the likes of me.
Despite being allowed back after the GMC investigation spanning 18 months, no one has followed up on my well-being for possible "PTSD" or why my professional growth is stunted. At the moment, I am doing well mentally and physically and my current supervisors, by understanding and patience have helped me out of the dark places and nightmares, but I yet feel fragile and vulnerable.
I am grateful for being given a lease of life in my case, but I hope sharing all this will encourage the GMC to empathise with the doctors referred to them for investigation, (especially those who consequently have lost their income as a result of concerns raised by referrers, Concerns that are carefully crafted to raise humanely resolved issues to extreme levels). No one can employ such doctors if restrictions, as in my case, are severe enough, sometimes even after the outcome of the investigation favours the investigated doctor eg. You must declare previous GMC investigations at application for future medical/clinical posts.
In conclusion, I have felt the need to speak out, perchance this will help stop another doctor dying. I dare say most doctors will consider suicide as a viable option, if subjected to the ordeal of referral to and subsequent investigation by the UK GMC, as things stand.
Competing interests: I have been previously investigated by the GMC
Re: Coroner to ask GMC to check vulnerability of doctors it investigates; GMC is worse than a mere bogeyman
Dear Editor
With reference to GMC, it was very recently that Clare Gerada seemingly attempted to reassure doctors that “We need to stop being frightened of the bogeyman”[1]. However, this latest tragedy[2] yet again highlights the GMC’s callous treatment of a BAME doctor and suggests, GMC is far worse than a ‘bogeyman’.
In her apparent praise of GMC processes, among other things, she said, “The GMC’s encouragement of using employment liaison officers and its training of staff, including how to connect with registrants and to recognise those who are distressed, has improved communication”[1]. If in reality, GMC followed what Gerada has stated above, in particular--“recognise those who are distressed”[1]—then this tragedy could have been averted. It is now obvious that GMC has abominably failed to recognise or even acknowledge the distress it caused Dr Suresh. A professional regulator which so frequently refers to ‘insight’ of its fee-paying doctors, appears to lack insight totally when it deals with highly distressed doctors, in particular those who come from BAME backgrounds.
Given the Coroner’s remarks[2], one will not be surprised if GMC now kick starts another review to appease the fee-paying doctors but that is unlikely to bring any substantial solace to the shocked and bereaved family of Dr Suresh. Will the GMC ever learn or treat BAME doctors fairly?
References
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m647
[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m835
Competing interests: No competing interests