Watching SWSNBN
I can't believe it. I have been woken from my slumber by my best mate who tells me that I need to write something on the blog about GMC complaints. Apparently, the Doctors Only website has a discussion thread containing a number of bad mooded doctors moaning about how unsuccessful the GMC complaint against Paice and Needham will be.
First, I need to rant about someone :-
By the way, for avoidance of all doubts, I believe Dr Skinner_doc is a large King Sized Prawn. Skinner_doc is full of hot air. He sits around in his boring office for too long and procrastinates. His verbal rubbish plants itself on the Doctors Only forum. He hopes that because he is a consultant, people will value his opinion. Of course, it is a great shame he is full of cr*p and has been for sometime. He should watch the slip of his tapping fingers very carefully because no one wants to view him with contempt :).
The King Prawn.
Dr Skinner_doc Who Actually Knows Sweet FA
First, I need to rant about someone :-
By the way, for avoidance of all doubts, I believe Dr Skinner_doc is a large King Sized Prawn. Skinner_doc is full of hot air. He sits around in his boring office for too long and procrastinates. His verbal rubbish plants itself on the Doctors Only forum. He hopes that because he is a consultant, people will value his opinion. Of course, it is a great shame he is full of cr*p and has been for sometime. He should watch the slip of his tapping fingers very carefully because no one wants to view him with contempt :).
The King Prawn.
Dr Skinner_doc Who Actually Knows Sweet FA
If Mr Consultant felt so strongly about Scot Jnr, why didn't he get his finger out and make the move.
Lets get a few things clear - The Complaint Against Paice and Needham was made to
1. Ensure some accountability for an abuse of power. Those in power have to understand that there will always be one person willing to hold them accountable in the event of their bad behaviour.
2. A tactical maneuvre to protect Dr Scot Jnr. Short Term protection [ he understands this] and long term protection [ he understands this too]
3. It is vital that free speech in the medical profession is maintain to ensure
a. Accountability
b. Maintenance of human rights
c. Freestyle debate to exchange ideas
d. For the improvement of the medical profession.
Now, an Employment Lawyer isn't the solution here because that would mean Scot Jnr engaging in litigation. Litigation against any authority in the NHS holds the stigma. Even if you win, it holds the stigma. This is not advisable at a delicate time. Some have criticised him for not overtly fighting his corner - I suspect he has his job back and that should be enough for him. It is important that he lays low and does his work. The rest of us who have nothing to lose can do the rest for him. What matters here is the " principle".
Now for the GMC complaint. It didn't just jump through the Registrar's hoop on a "Fluke" card. The complaint was carefully constructed to meet the criteria required to pass through this stage. Please do read the complaint again and familiarise. The accusation on Paice is actually alleged dishonesty amongst everything else.
Fine, if everyone wants to be killjoy about this then be my guest. Rome wasn't built in a day by just giving up. Yes, I agree, there are huge obstacles, I also believe that the GMC has the aim of throwing it out and will find an excuse if they can. The case examiners can do anything under their veil of anonymity.
There is a way they will not throw it out - that is with enough support. It is fine, if everyone wants to leave me to my own devices. I can fight to the best of my ability and it probably won't be enough. If you don't try, you don't get. Now, getting the complaint past the Registrars stage [GMC] was no easy feat. Believe me. It required hard work and planning on a tactical level. Winning anything at the GMC is a very difficult task. It requires attention to detail, methodical study of case law and tactical moves. Intellectually defeating the GMC is not impossible.
So accountability isn't obtained just by sitting on your backside and screaming "accountability", it is demanded by knowing your stuff and slowly moving the mountain. If anyone wants to assist, they should:-
1. Set up Petition websites citing that Paice and Needham should be held to account
2. Every person who has experienced their wrath can write into the GMC anonymously. The GMC have always been happy to check facts if given to them.
3. Writing anonymously to the GMC in support of the complaint eg and the importance of human rights. This is the man dealing with it
D Patterson.
Fitness to Practise Directorate [GMC]
Direct Dial: 0161 923 6426
Fax No: 0161 923 6578
Email: dpatterson@gmc-uk.org
Emails can be sent to Graeme Catto [GCatto@gmc-uk.org] or
Finlay Scott [finlayscott@gmc-uk.org]
4. Researching the GMC procedures and ensuring the case is watertight enough for the case examiners to take forward.
So these are practical things that people can do instead of moaning about how this complaint is going to sink. Sure it will sink - if no one gives it kick ass support and just gives up. So even if it does fail, at least we would have tried our best. The important aspect is to try, and to work hard to ensure that no professional in higher authority is able to abuse their authority to harass a junior doctor. That is an important message to send out. A very vital one. It applies to the MMC issues, it applies to anyone who has been mistreated by the GMC. This therefore isn't just a GMC complaint - it is a complaint that creates a Principle - and that principle is to protect junior doctors from those that will happily abuse them due to a serious lack of accountability.
Besides, as they say, it ain't over till its over and it ain't over till the fat lady sings.
The investigation process at the GMC is detailed here. This is the Guidance to the Fitness to Practise Rules. These are the Fitness to Practise Rules.
The Case Examiners assess the Realistic Prospect Test. This is the Guidance for Case Examiners. These are the overall Guidance for Decision Makers. The case law is fairly self evident for the GMC - and I will discuss this at a later date. These documents should be read by each doctor - whoever they are. Education is part of armoury. There is no point relying on defence unions, on courts, on lawyers on the higher echelons of the medical profession - they don't offer protection. This is why it is vital to be independent and to know your stuff - in the event of an emergency.
So, just for the record, I don't need a group to huddle behind like PACA does. The above stuff is known in my head and studied by me.
Both consultants, Oliver Dearlove and Richard Marks are wrong on the point of review of the Case Examiners decision. I can forgive Marks because he is cute and he is a busy man with a mission.
Oliver though isn't cute and he is a PACA wolf. He also wallows in his consultant hood - he actually knows sweet FA about the GMC. The worst thing about Oliver is that he isn't even willing to learn or read. He just thinks he knows "IT". Therein lies the problem with MOST consultants. They have the inability to understand the concept that other people may well be more astute than them.
Judicial Review is a lengthy process and I would never go down that route unless it was the very final option.
The Route of Choice is Rule 12 [Fitness to Practise Rules 2004]. The Extract is listed below. In the event of the GMC throws the complaint out at Case Examiners stage, I intend to use Rule 12 to ask President Catto to review the decision. That is my emergency back up plan :). Rule 12 can be used repeatedly by the way. It has no cost implications like a risky judicial review.
So in summary,
1. I have won two Rule 12 applications in the past. One against two Department of Health lawyers.
2. I have won one court application against the GMC [ Pal v GMC 2004]. It still remains the only case in human rights and data protection. Whatever anyone says, my friends and I formatted the claim and the lawyers edited it right at the end.
3. If anyone knows about the GMC, I do, that is because I make it my business to know everything I need to, to win. This is a principle to follow not only about medicine but about every problem anyone faces. It costs nothing to read - and you don't have to be a lawyer to read a law book.
4. The three complaints against me made to the GMC went in my favour. That is because I write kick ass defences.
So overall, my intention, as always is to win. It is though more important to apply myself to the best of my ability - if I lose then I have to accept that but Paice and Needham will not get away without a tough fight. Their defence lawyers know this. I am up against my old defence union the Medical Protection Society [ idiots they are!] representing Paice. They know that when I fight, I fight really really hard and I never give up. Finally, I don't need Employment lawyers, I don't need lawyers, I just need my brain, hard work and perhaps some additional colleague support [ if that isn't forthcoming then so be it - and I am not going to cry about it].
So for all those who want to write negative comments - please do. At least I am not sitting around " watching" this unfold like a spectator sport. So consultants wise, only Richard Marks has assisted in this issue, Oliver Dearlove has watched from his comfy PACA Wolf armchair and Dr Skinner just throws around words - all the right spelling but not quite in the right order :).
For avoidance of doubt, all documents pertaining to the complaint [ bar one containing my initial signature of consent] will be disclosed online. The GMC is not a court and therefore anything goes :) [ GMC v BBC]. Besides, we all have to maintain the GMC's standards of " transparency" :)
Now for the GMC complaint. It didn't just jump through the Registrar's hoop on a "Fluke" card. The complaint was carefully constructed to meet the criteria required to pass through this stage. Please do read the complaint again and familiarise. The accusation on Paice is actually alleged dishonesty amongst everything else.
Fine, if everyone wants to be killjoy about this then be my guest. Rome wasn't built in a day by just giving up. Yes, I agree, there are huge obstacles, I also believe that the GMC has the aim of throwing it out and will find an excuse if they can. The case examiners can do anything under their veil of anonymity.
There is a way they will not throw it out - that is with enough support. It is fine, if everyone wants to leave me to my own devices. I can fight to the best of my ability and it probably won't be enough. If you don't try, you don't get. Now, getting the complaint past the Registrars stage [GMC] was no easy feat. Believe me. It required hard work and planning on a tactical level. Winning anything at the GMC is a very difficult task. It requires attention to detail, methodical study of case law and tactical moves. Intellectually defeating the GMC is not impossible.
So accountability isn't obtained just by sitting on your backside and screaming "accountability", it is demanded by knowing your stuff and slowly moving the mountain. If anyone wants to assist, they should:-
1. Set up Petition websites citing that Paice and Needham should be held to account
2. Every person who has experienced their wrath can write into the GMC anonymously. The GMC have always been happy to check facts if given to them.
3. Writing anonymously to the GMC in support of the complaint eg and the importance of human rights. This is the man dealing with it
D Patterson.
Fitness to Practise Directorate [GMC]
Direct Dial: 0161 923 6426
Fax No: 0161 923 6578
Email: dpatterson@gmc-uk.org
Emails can be sent to Graeme Catto [GCatto@gmc-uk.org] or
Finlay Scott [finlayscott@gmc-uk.org]
4. Researching the GMC procedures and ensuring the case is watertight enough for the case examiners to take forward.
So these are practical things that people can do instead of moaning about how this complaint is going to sink. Sure it will sink - if no one gives it kick ass support and just gives up. So even if it does fail, at least we would have tried our best. The important aspect is to try, and to work hard to ensure that no professional in higher authority is able to abuse their authority to harass a junior doctor. That is an important message to send out. A very vital one. It applies to the MMC issues, it applies to anyone who has been mistreated by the GMC. This therefore isn't just a GMC complaint - it is a complaint that creates a Principle - and that principle is to protect junior doctors from those that will happily abuse them due to a serious lack of accountability.
Besides, as they say, it ain't over till its over and it ain't over till the fat lady sings.
The investigation process at the GMC is detailed here. This is the Guidance to the Fitness to Practise Rules. These are the Fitness to Practise Rules.
The Case Examiners assess the Realistic Prospect Test. This is the Guidance for Case Examiners. These are the overall Guidance for Decision Makers. The case law is fairly self evident for the GMC - and I will discuss this at a later date. These documents should be read by each doctor - whoever they are. Education is part of armoury. There is no point relying on defence unions, on courts, on lawyers on the higher echelons of the medical profession - they don't offer protection. This is why it is vital to be independent and to know your stuff - in the event of an emergency.
So, just for the record, I don't need a group to huddle behind like PACA does. The above stuff is known in my head and studied by me.
Both consultants, Oliver Dearlove and Richard Marks are wrong on the point of review of the Case Examiners decision. I can forgive Marks because he is cute and he is a busy man with a mission.
Oliver though isn't cute and he is a PACA wolf. He also wallows in his consultant hood - he actually knows sweet FA about the GMC. The worst thing about Oliver is that he isn't even willing to learn or read. He just thinks he knows "IT". Therein lies the problem with MOST consultants. They have the inability to understand the concept that other people may well be more astute than them.
Judicial Review is a lengthy process and I would never go down that route unless it was the very final option.
The Route of Choice is Rule 12 [Fitness to Practise Rules 2004]. The Extract is listed below. In the event of the GMC throws the complaint out at Case Examiners stage, I intend to use Rule 12 to ask President Catto to review the decision. That is my emergency back up plan :). Rule 12 can be used repeatedly by the way. It has no cost implications like a risky judicial review.
So in summary,
1. I have won two Rule 12 applications in the past. One against two Department of Health lawyers.
2. I have won one court application against the GMC [ Pal v GMC 2004]. It still remains the only case in human rights and data protection. Whatever anyone says, my friends and I formatted the claim and the lawyers edited it right at the end.
3. If anyone knows about the GMC, I do, that is because I make it my business to know everything I need to, to win. This is a principle to follow not only about medicine but about every problem anyone faces. It costs nothing to read - and you don't have to be a lawyer to read a law book.
4. The three complaints against me made to the GMC went in my favour. That is because I write kick ass defences.
So overall, my intention, as always is to win. It is though more important to apply myself to the best of my ability - if I lose then I have to accept that but Paice and Needham will not get away without a tough fight. Their defence lawyers know this. I am up against my old defence union the Medical Protection Society [ idiots they are!] representing Paice. They know that when I fight, I fight really really hard and I never give up. Finally, I don't need Employment lawyers, I don't need lawyers, I just need my brain, hard work and perhaps some additional colleague support [ if that isn't forthcoming then so be it - and I am not going to cry about it].
So for all those who want to write negative comments - please do. At least I am not sitting around " watching" this unfold like a spectator sport. So consultants wise, only Richard Marks has assisted in this issue, Oliver Dearlove has watched from his comfy PACA Wolf armchair and Dr Skinner just throws around words - all the right spelling but not quite in the right order :).
For avoidance of doubt, all documents pertaining to the complaint [ bar one containing my initial signature of consent] will be disclosed online. The GMC is not a court and therefore anything goes :) [ GMC v BBC]. Besides, we all have to maintain the GMC's standards of " transparency" :)
Review of decisions [ Fitness to Practise Rules 2004]
Rule 12.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the following decisions may be reviewed by the President-
(a) a decision not to refer an allegation to a FTP Panel;
(b) a decision to issue a warning in accordance with rule 11(2), 11(4) or 11(6); or
(c) a decision to cease consideration of an allegation upon receipt of undertakings from the practitioner in accordance with rule 10(4).
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the President shall not review a decision specified in paragraph (1) unless he considers that there is new evidence or information which makes such review-
(a) necessary for the protection of the public;
(b) necessary for the prevention of injustice to the practitioner; or
(c) otherwise necessary in the public interest.
(3) The President may review a decision specified in paragraph (1) where he receives information that the General Council has erred in its administrative handling of the case and he is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.
(4) Where the President decides to review a decision specified in paragraph (1), the Registrar shall-
(a) inform the practitioner and the maker of the allegation (if any) of the decision to review;
(b) inform the practitioner and the maker of the allegation (if any) of any new evidence or information and, where appropriate, provide them with copies of any new evidence received; and
(c) seek representations from the practitioner and the maker of the allegation (if any) regarding the review of the decision.
(5) Where the President decides to review a decision specified in paragraph (1), he may-
(a) determine that the original decision should stand;
(b) refer the allegation for consideration under rule 8; or
(c) refer the allegation for consideration under rule 10(2).
(6) Where the President has reviewed a decision specified in paragraph (1), the Registrar shall notify-
(a) the practitioner;
(b) the maker of the allegation (if any); and
(c) any other person he considers has an interest in receiving notification,
in writing, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the President's decision, together with his reasons for that decision
Rule 12.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the following decisions may be reviewed by the President-
(a) a decision not to refer an allegation to a FTP Panel;
(b) a decision to issue a warning in accordance with rule 11(2), 11(4) or 11(6); or
(c) a decision to cease consideration of an allegation upon receipt of undertakings from the practitioner in accordance with rule 10(4).
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the President shall not review a decision specified in paragraph (1) unless he considers that there is new evidence or information which makes such review-
(a) necessary for the protection of the public;
(b) necessary for the prevention of injustice to the practitioner; or
(c) otherwise necessary in the public interest.
(3) The President may review a decision specified in paragraph (1) where he receives information that the General Council has erred in its administrative handling of the case and he is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.
(4) Where the President decides to review a decision specified in paragraph (1), the Registrar shall-
(a) inform the practitioner and the maker of the allegation (if any) of the decision to review;
(b) inform the practitioner and the maker of the allegation (if any) of any new evidence or information and, where appropriate, provide them with copies of any new evidence received; and
(c) seek representations from the practitioner and the maker of the allegation (if any) regarding the review of the decision.
(5) Where the President decides to review a decision specified in paragraph (1), he may-
(a) determine that the original decision should stand;
(b) refer the allegation for consideration under rule 8; or
(c) refer the allegation for consideration under rule 10(2).
(6) Where the President has reviewed a decision specified in paragraph (1), the Registrar shall notify-
(a) the practitioner;
(b) the maker of the allegation (if any); and
(c) any other person he considers has an interest in receiving notification,
in writing, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the President's decision, together with his reasons for that decision
1 comments:
Another great point Rita,
For evil to succeed it is enough for good men to do nothing. Well the good the bad and the ugly in medicine do nothing to protect their colleagues, doctors in trouble and their patients
Too many doctors are observing not doing. Time for doctors to put away their invisible ink and start writing about what is important. Values, hard work and supporting each other and ill people, Well done Rita!
Post a Comment