Wednesday, 3 August 2011

GMC thickos

As some of you are probably aware the GMC are not my favourite organisation. In my view they have the degree of arrogance only found in those who have power, without accountability. Most public bodies are accountable to someone, usually an Ombudsman. Even the police are accountable, through the Police Complaints Commission, which, in theory at least is independent. So why then if you want to complain about the GMC is your sole and only route to the GMC itself? So what happened to the legal principal of Nemo Debet Esse Judex In Propria Causa”?
I used to think that their attitude to the quarter of a million UK doctors who keep the GMC alive through the retention fee, was one of indifference at best and malicious contempt and disdain at worst, and their attitude to whistleblowing seems to support this view. 

But I have now started to think that they are in fact simply incompetent and stupid. I have come to this view by reading something recently sent my way by a reader.

The GMC recently held a hearing against a doctor who I shall not name. Since the hearing concerned itself greatly with a matter of the doctor’s health the press and public were excluded from the hearing to protect the doctor’s right to medical confidentiality.

“The Panel passed a resolution, under Rule 41 (3) (b) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, that from time to time, the press and public be excluded from those parts of the hearing where the Panel considered information relating to the physical or mental health of the practitioner.”
So why then, having excluded the press and public from the hearing, did they subsequently publish the entire proceeds of the hearing on the internet, revealing these medical details? I am not going to provide a link to this page, but I have seen it and you will have to take my word for it that the unfortunate doctor’s full medical details are laid bare for the public to see.

What are the GMC thinking? I have no way of contacting the doctor in question, and have no idea if he is aware of what they have done, but if it was me I would pursue this as far as it would go. 

Bloody arseholing hypocrites.


  1. If I am not mistaken, you are referring to a case that was also published in the MDU Journal, with the permission of the doctor involved. I do not know if this happened as a response to the matter being now in the public domain and the doctor feeling the need to address the issue, or if the doctor gave permission to the GMC to publish after the resolution of the matter.

  2. Gora. I don't think this is the same case. The MDU journal publishes only twice a year, and there is no mention of this case in the last two.