I have written before about how GMC procedures are skewed against doctors who are unfortunate enough to come to their attention. How unlikely these doctors are to receive fair and impartial treatment of the sort they could expect as a legal right (article 6) in a proper court.
Within the GMC there are laid down some safeguards for doctors that should ensure some balance but the GMC is perfectly prepared to ride roughshod over these safeguards when they have the scent of blood in their nose.
Dr Phillipp Bonhoeffer, a paediatric cardiac surgeon, has recently been suspended by the GMC, over allegations of child sex abuse supposedly committed before 2004. I have no way of knowing whether or not there is any basis to the allegations, but spurious allegations of abuse are by no means rare. It is imperative therefore that guilt should be properly established before punishment is imposed. (article 7)
The police have investigated, and have brought no charges, partly because of the length of time that has elapsed since the alleged offences were committed, but also because the sole evidence for the offence is the testimony of a third party, hearsay evidence, which would not normally be accepted in a criminal court.
The GMC are not hindered by such inconveniences. Although their own policy is not to investigate allegations going back for more than 5 years they have decided to ignore that. They have also decided to accept hearsay evidence going back to events of eight years ago. The GMC of course are above the Human Rights Act, in their own eyes at least, and in this attitude they have previous form.
The unfortunate Dr Bonhoeffer therefore is at a great disadvantage. He is not going to have the opportunity to have his accuser cross examined, to question the only “evidence“ against him, which he denies strongly. The GMC, freed from any obligation to prove the offence to criminal standards, have probably made up their mind already. Fair trial my arse.
"The GMC are not hindered by such inconveniences. Although their own policy is not to investigate allegations going back for more than 5 years they have decided to ignore that"
ReplyDeleteThis is inaccurate. The GMC can investigate allegations going back more than 5 years IF it is in the public interest to do so.
Just for the record - all of you are too late RE the GMC. They are coming fast with the revalidation issue and no one can control them. Read the rules and you will probably learn something :).
Rita Pal
PS The case law described in http://henshallhearing.blogspot.com/ sadly showed that cases could be tried many many years later. There are a series of AG cases. These doctors attempted to argue Article 6 unsuccessfully. This was in the days of the criminal standard of proof.
ReplyDeleteNow we are in the sliding civil standard - because lets face it none of the weak profession of doctors bothered to fight to keep the criminal standard, anything goes - including heresay evidence many years on.
The situation above has been created by the very doctors who sit and pontificate on the state of our regulatory body. The bottomline is - you get what you fight for and what you pay for.
The GMC is now a powerful, dangerous, dysfunctional, abuser of rights - and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The amended Medical Act is already in force.
RP