The Icy ResponseA formal complaint was made to the General Medical Council regarding Professor Elizabeth Paice. The details of this can be read here.
The response to the complaint was made recently. The GMC disclosed the following response from Professor Paice to me today.
Perhaps the posters on the Doctors Only website could confirm the accuracy of the statements made by Paice. If there are any elements of further dishonest behaviour, please will the relevant people let me know. I am due to write a rebuttal to this response which should be a rather simple matter. I am always happy to have additional input,views and opinions to include within my response. I have until the 28th November 2008 apparently. Secondly, please note that Paice has not defended herself against the substantive allegations made against her listed in my formal complaint.
The material is published in line with the GMC's own transparency guidance.
Response to Complaint: GMC Reference C1-220901005
1. I am a postgraduate dean, a role I have held since 1995. I have responsibility for managing the postgraduate education and training of doctors in London.
2. Doctors.net.uk is a professional network for GMC registered doctors and UK medical students. A clinical discussion forum area is provided for professional discussion, and according to Doctors.net.uk this is used by more than 20,000 doctors in a 30 day period. There are open and closed fora in the area. One open forum is entitled ‘Air your views to the media’ and it is clearly stated to contributors that this forum is also open to a list of named journalists.
3. On 12 July, 2008 an open letter addressed to a senior member of the profession was posted by ‘abrachmackay’ on the ‘Air your views to the media’ forum. When I read this I was shocked by the abusive and offensive language used. I append the full posting. The extracts from the posting which concerned me particularly are as follows: “As a representative of the medical profession you represent, at best, a mendacious, avaricious self serving career power chaser with many psychopathic personality traits and at worst a malignant, destructive, ignoble, dishonourable empty husk of soiled humanity…… You may also wish to think about inserting your immaculate portfolio up your anal orifice…... … it is about time you shut your malignant, shit encrusted stoma of a mouth and fucked off to your witches' bastard palace and pontificated to a coven of shitbags more receptive to your line of thinking...”
4. On 16 July 2008, I contacted a colleague who has Board level responsibilities for Doctors.net.uk, and with whom I had previously discussed the use of abusive language on this website. I sent him the posting concerned, which I had copied from the site. He replied, letting me know that he shared my concern and that he had raised it with the executive team. The posting concerned was edited, though not removed, on 17 July 2008. The edited version removed the language that caused me particular concern.
5. On 19 July 2008, having reflected on the case, and having observed that the author of the offensive posting had identified himself as a surgical trainee in Inverness, I sent an email to the postgraduate dean for that part of Scotland, bringing the posting to her attention. I did this because I felt that the language of the posting raised concerns about the professionalism of the individual who wrote it. In alerting his postgraduate dean, I was responding to the fact that this was a doctor in training, whose education was the responsibility of the deanery. I was mindful of Para 46 of Good Medical Practice and considered that his actions could fall within the category of bullying and harassment of a colleague. I was aware of the duty to challenge such behaviour.
6. This was the end of my involvement. I did not, then or later, make any recommendation to Doctors.net.uk, nor to the Scottish deanery, nor to the hospital concerned, nor to anyone else, about how the case should be handled.
7. I believe the action that I took was appropriate and proportionate, in view of the grossly offensive and abusive nature of the posting, in a forum open to thousands of doctors and the media. The posting was not removed or edited for five days, until I brought it to the attention of the web managers as described above.
Professor Elisabeth Paice
Dean Director
London Deanery
14 November 2008
The response to the complaint was made recently. The GMC disclosed the following response from Professor Paice to me today.
Perhaps the posters on the Doctors Only website could confirm the accuracy of the statements made by Paice. If there are any elements of further dishonest behaviour, please will the relevant people let me know. I am due to write a rebuttal to this response which should be a rather simple matter. I am always happy to have additional input,views and opinions to include within my response. I have until the 28th November 2008 apparently. Secondly, please note that Paice has not defended herself against the substantive allegations made against her listed in my formal complaint.
The material is published in line with the GMC's own transparency guidance.
Response to Complaint: GMC Reference C1-220901005
1. I am a postgraduate dean, a role I have held since 1995. I have responsibility for managing the postgraduate education and training of doctors in London.
2. Doctors.net.uk is a professional network for GMC registered doctors and UK medical students. A clinical discussion forum area is provided for professional discussion, and according to Doctors.net.uk this is used by more than 20,000 doctors in a 30 day period. There are open and closed fora in the area. One open forum is entitled ‘Air your views to the media’ and it is clearly stated to contributors that this forum is also open to a list of named journalists.
3. On 12 July, 2008 an open letter addressed to a senior member of the profession was posted by ‘abrachmackay’ on the ‘Air your views to the media’ forum. When I read this I was shocked by the abusive and offensive language used. I append the full posting. The extracts from the posting which concerned me particularly are as follows: “As a representative of the medical profession you represent, at best, a mendacious, avaricious self serving career power chaser with many psychopathic personality traits and at worst a malignant, destructive, ignoble, dishonourable empty husk of soiled humanity…… You may also wish to think about inserting your immaculate portfolio up your anal orifice…... … it is about time you shut your malignant, shit encrusted stoma of a mouth and fucked off to your witches' bastard palace and pontificated to a coven of shitbags more receptive to your line of thinking...”
4. On 16 July 2008, I contacted a colleague who has Board level responsibilities for Doctors.net.uk, and with whom I had previously discussed the use of abusive language on this website. I sent him the posting concerned, which I had copied from the site. He replied, letting me know that he shared my concern and that he had raised it with the executive team. The posting concerned was edited, though not removed, on 17 July 2008. The edited version removed the language that caused me particular concern.
5. On 19 July 2008, having reflected on the case, and having observed that the author of the offensive posting had identified himself as a surgical trainee in Inverness, I sent an email to the postgraduate dean for that part of Scotland, bringing the posting to her attention. I did this because I felt that the language of the posting raised concerns about the professionalism of the individual who wrote it. In alerting his postgraduate dean, I was responding to the fact that this was a doctor in training, whose education was the responsibility of the deanery. I was mindful of Para 46 of Good Medical Practice and considered that his actions could fall within the category of bullying and harassment of a colleague. I was aware of the duty to challenge such behaviour.
6. This was the end of my involvement. I did not, then or later, make any recommendation to Doctors.net.uk, nor to the Scottish deanery, nor to the hospital concerned, nor to anyone else, about how the case should be handled.
7. I believe the action that I took was appropriate and proportionate, in view of the grossly offensive and abusive nature of the posting, in a forum open to thousands of doctors and the media. The posting was not removed or edited for five days, until I brought it to the attention of the web managers as described above.
Professor Elisabeth Paice
Dean Director
London Deanery
14 November 2008
2 comments:
“As a representative of the medical profession you represent, at best, a mendacious, avaricious self serving career power chaser with many psychopathic personality traits and at worst a malignant, destructive, ignoble, dishonourable empty husk of soiled humanity…… You may also wish to think about inserting your immaculate portfolio up your anal orifice…... … it is about time you shut your malignant, shit encrusted stoma of a mouth and fucked off to your witches' bastard palace and pontificated to a coven of shitbags more receptive to your line of thinking...”
Sorry, It's just that I enjoyed that so much I thought it was worth posting again.
It also sums up my feelings towards those who devised the rating system that enabled our Mental Health Trust (Cambridgeshire) to gain an "Excellent" rating despite being "Below Average" for Crisis care, Patient Experience and In-Patient care; they didn't managed to get the clinical waste thing sorted either.
But they did very well on the decoration and chairs in the waiting rooms (all screwed down to the floor).
For the record, I have had far less controversial posts removed from DNUK. All a person has to do is press the "report this post" button, the moderators come scuttling and it instantly disappears, as if by magic. Why it took EP seven days to find the button, heaven only knows!
I resigned from DNUK early this year largely for this reason. It is not a safe plaice.
Post a Comment