I like reading Liz Millers blog and I rarely have an opportunity to do so. I was pointed to the direction of an interesting open letter. This is what a anonymous commenter told Miller a few days ago. I have shamelessly stolen the quote and cut and pasted it here. Yes, I have no shame! I supppose, Dr Miller will understand that public and transparent theft from her blog is acceptable for a small bribe of a chocolate or two.
Open letter to Niall Dickson.
On 1 January 2010 you will have in your in-tray:
(1) Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch's decision
(2) Southall's appeal against erasure
(3) GMC Predeterminations
(4) GMC accused of "show trials"
(5) GMC Revalidation - and how to pay for it !!!
(6) Meltdown in the GMC Investigation Office as we find out how bad their processes really are ?
(7) FOI from Blackstone Chambers and Field Fisher Waterhouse to find out how much they have taken out of the public purse (mis) prosecuting doctors over the past five years.
(8) Mr Justice Collins' retirement remarks about the nature of the GMC and its jurisdiction
(9) LJJ Smith and Thomas "on the warpath" about absence of separation of powers, civil standards, conflicts of interests of GMC Panel chairs, unfair GMC Performance Assessments, etc
(10) The outing of the GMC Press Office for fanning vexatious complaints.
Oh - and the GMC's Top Ten list of doctors on their hit list.
Count Rubin is not going to take the heat - it is all for you - with a change of government loosening a few loyalties.
Isn't chronic diseases at the Kings Fund a little safer ?
I would say the above is the best and most accurate summary I have read. I always find it fascinating that after R v GMC Ex Parte Pal, someone went on the warpath and coincidentally, Finlay Scott left his post, Paul Philip is now slithering as fast as his scaly skin can take him to the General Social Care Council. A new flight steward us to to take over this ship. No doubt Scot CBE and Philip will be leaving their treasure chest of whistleblower skeletons.
Collins J is curiously no longer lead judge of the administrative courts . I have always found the concept of judicial independence fascinating. Actually, I find many issues interesting when it comes to Collins J. He has edited the rules of the Royal College of Psychiatry as well apparently. His most famous moment was to let Chai Patel off on the grounds that it was a rotten indictment.
The GMC had implemented what they GMC term dealing with vexatious complaints. No one actually knows what is deemed " vexatious" at the GMC. It is amazing how the concept matches my pre-action protocols to the GMC even down to the Rules quoted. Of course, this concept flies in the face of the result in the actual case R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal which dictates that any complaint, no matter how bizarre that raises a question of misconduct is to be draconianly investigated through the Stream 1 [ dangerous doctors] procedure at the GMC. Now that a number of patient or relative complainants have used this case, the GMC are unhappy about it. I have no idea why the GMC does not practise what it preaches. What is good for the goose is good for the gander?! Or didn't Mark Shaw QC expect this kind of side effect? Ah, I keep forgetting of course that the only intelligent barristers in this world are Robert Englehart and Mark Shaw QC and the rest of us are common and thick. I must remember where my place is in this world as dictated to by these QCs. Only they can read and none of us plebby doctors can.
3 comments:
Please leave the Blackstone Brothers alone (Englehart and Shaw QC). The gruesome twosome have lost their "Director" of Fitness to Practise (tears). His FTP manual will keep them in dreadful, procedural problems for the next five years (more tears)?
If GMC Towers and the Blackstone Bros don't know what "vexatious" means; do they know what "misconduct" is ?
Or, is it not defined in statute like "insight", "fitness to practise", or "truth", "honesty" etc.
We may have a jurisdiction where no important word is defined ? Does that mean it is meaningless ?
To my knowledge, the GMC have not developed the meaning of the term vexatious. They have not matched it to similar instances of vexatious litigants in the court. It was essentially speeded up due to PACA's insistence. Even PACA haven't thought it out properly.
I suspect I am at fault for the development of this vexatious so called policy. I had thought the GMC would consider it logically, develop a policy but they haven't. It has actually all gone tits up. They have done something to please the PACA campaign group but have not thought about the repercussions to genuine complaints.
This simply gives them an excuse to discard justified complaints by simply abusing the term vexatious and that was never in any one's interest.
There is or was due to be a consultation on the word vexatious but no one knows what happened to that. It is a bit like the word "misconduct". There is no defined meaning of what kinds of conduct is capable of being "misconduct". Anything goes this days as they say. Anything the GMC disapproves of is now "misconduct". They disapprove of many things - including reading Playboy, having sex out of wedlock, buying lingerie from Ann Summers etc.
So, you can see how I would be guilty of a capability misconduct every day of my life. I tend to write romantic fiction, I often write about interesting encounters...... etc. God forbid the fact the GMC may know about my taste in lingerie and men. That would be misconduct on an hourly basis just for looking!
:)
RP
Post a Comment