Dr Michael Irwin (photograph on the left, click on it to read more) worked as the medical director at United Nations. He is known for his humanitarian work in assisted dying which led to him being struck off medical register by the General Medical Council. He campaigned tirelessly for the right to die before and since. Now, new proposed changes (private bill by Lord Falconer) in law would mean that at least those with mental capacity and physical ability to take medication that would end their life would be able to do so if they have less than six months to live. Doctors would be allowed to prescribe such medication but not administer it themselves.Dr Michael Irwin is a prominent member of the National Secular Society(NSS). Each year Irwin Prize, which he funds, is awarded to a prominent secularist. Recently, NSS wrote about him HERE
And here is the judgment by the General Medical Council to erase him from the medical register:
Fitness to
PractiSe Panel
26 – 27 September 2005
Hearing Room 2, Regent’s
Park, 350 Euston Road, London
Name of Respondent Doctor: Dr Michael Henry Knox IRWIN
Registered Qualifications: MB BS 1955 Lond
Registration Number: 0014922
Type
of Case: New Misconduct/Caution
Panel
Members: Professor K Hobbs, Chairman (Medical)
Mr
R Bergman (Lay)
Mr
M Chapman (Lay)
Dr
M Johnson (Medical)
Mrs
L Lloyd (Lay)
Legal
Assessor: Mr R Hay
Secretary to the Panel: Christine Challis
Representation:
GMC: Miss Alison Foster QC, instructed by GMCLegal
represented the GMC
Doctor: Dr Irwin was present and not represented
allegation
A.
“That
you were on 6 July 2004, at Guildford Police Station, cautioned for an offence,
which you admitted, that on 18 October 2003 at Cranleigh in Surrey, had in your
possession 30 20mg tablets of Temazepam, a controlled drug of class C, with
intent to supply it to Mr PK.” Admitted and found proved
B.
“And
that, being registered under the Medical Act 1983,
‘1. On the dates specified in the
allegations set out below, you were a UK registered medical practitioner; Admitted
and found proved
‘2. You were interviewed under caution by
the Surrey and Sussex Police on 2 March 2004; Admitted and found proved
‘3. At the interview under caution you
admitted that,
a. On 18 October 2003 and at Moss
Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Surrey, you submitted a prescription for and obtained, in
your own name and using your GMC registration number, 30 x 20mg tablets of
Temazepam, Admitted and found proved
b.
You travelled to Isle
of Man on/about 19 October 2003 to visit
Mr PK, Admitted and found proved
c. On your visit to the Isle of Man you
had in your possession, a quantity of approximately 60 Temazepam tablets, which
included the 30 x 20mg tablets obtained by you on 18 October 2003 at Moss
Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Admitted and found proved
d. You intended to supply Mr K with the
quantity of Temazepam to assist him to commit suicide, Admitted and found
proved
e. i. you also obtained travel-sickness tablets
to provide to
Mr
K to take with the Temazepam, Admitted and found proved
ii. the travel sickness tablets would have
assisted Mr K to hold down the Temazepam, which may otherwise have been
difficult for him; Admitted and found proved
‘4. You did not eventually supply to Mr K,
the Temazepam that you had intended to supply to him, as he had become too ill
to take it himself; Admitted and found proved
‘5. On 6 July 2004, you accepted a caution
from Surrey Police, for the offence of having in your possession with the
intent to supply to Mr K, a Class C controlled drug, namely Temazepam; Admitted
and found proved
‘6. Your actions as set out at paragraphs
3.a., c., d. and e. above were,
a. Unprofessional,
Found proved
b. Inappropriate,
Found proved
c. Irresponsible,
Found proved
d. Likely
to bring the profession into disrepute; Found proved
[In reaching its findings in relation to allegations 6a, b, c and d, the
Panel took into account the undisputed evidence that you obtained in your own
name Temazepam, a Class C controlled drug, immediately before travelling to the
Isle of Man intending to supply it to Mr K.
This was an act of deception.
Moreover, on 6 July 2004 you admitted an offence contrary to the Misuse
of Drugs Act 1971 and, as a consequence, you were cautioned at Guildford Police
Station.
It is for these reasons that the Panel has found your actions in
relation to allegations 3a, c, d and e to be unprofessional, inappropriate,
irresponsible and likely to bring the profession into disrepute].
‘7. You
self-prescribed, during 2003, approximately 140 20mg tablets of Temazepam,
using your GMC registration; Admitted and found proved
‘8. At the interview under caution on 2
March 2004, you further admitted that,
a. You had self-prescribed and obtained,
using your GMC registration, 20 Temazepam tablets on 13 December 2003, being
the day after your arrest, Admitted and found proved
b. You had been self-prescribing Temazepam
over a period of time, for the purposes of stockpiling it; Found proved
‘9. On 25 January 2005, you self-prescribed
and obtained, using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, from
Lloyds Pharmacy, Hove; Admitted and found proved
‘10. On 31 January 2005, you self-prescribed
and obtained, using your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam, from
Glaibyer and Kemp Dispensing Chemists, Hove; Admitted and found proved
‘11. Your actions as set out at paragraphs 7.
to 10. above were,
a. Inappropriate,
Found proved
b. Irresponsible,
Found proved
c. Unprofessional;’
Found proved
[In reaching its findings in relation to allegations
11a, b and c, the Panel has taken account of your evidence that you
self-prescribed Temazepam over a period of time with the intention of
stockpiling the drug for your own use.
The Panel finds that the quantities self-prescribed were excessive. Moreover, it is concerned that you kept
these large quantities of Temazepam without secure storage arrangements. Temazepam is a drug of addiction with a
street value in the illicit drugs trade.
It is for these reasons that the Panel has found your actions to be
inappropriate, irresponsible and unprofessional. ]
Determination
on impaired fitness to practise
“Dr Irwin
The Panel has considered the
submissions made by Miss Foster, your own comments to the Panel and the advice
of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has
determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your
misconduct and the Police caution.
The Panel found that the
Police caution and your misconduct were sufficient for it to determine that
your fitness to practise is impaired.
Indeed, the Panel regard either of these matters individually as serious
enough to amount to impairment.
The Panel has referred to
the May 2001 edition of ‘Good Medical Practice’; in particular it has noted the
requirements that a medical practitioner must be honest and trustworthy and
avoid abusing his position as a doctor.
Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the same edition states: “Some parts of
medical practice are governed by law or are regulated by other statutory
bodies. You must observe and keep up to
date with the laws and statutory codes of practice which affect your
work”. The Panel is of the view that
you have been in breach of these requirements by committing the serious
criminal offence of possessing Temazepam, a class C controlled drug with intent
to supply. This resulted in the Police
caution.
Furthermore, you admitted
that you dishonestly self-prescribed this drug ostensibly for your own use when
in fact it was intended for another. This, together with your repeated
self-prescribing of supplies of Temazepam for the purposes of stockpiling for
your own use against the advice of your general practitioner, amounts to an
abuse of the trust placed in you as a doctor.
In all the circumstances, you have abused your position as a doctor.
The Panel will now invite
further submissions from Miss Foster as to the appropriate sanction, if any, to
be imposed on your registration.
Following Miss Foster’s submissions you will be given the opportunity to
respond and to call any evidence if you wish to do so.
As is usual in these
proceedings, the Panel will expect both parties to make reference to the GMC’s
Indicative Sanctions Guidance when making submissions.“
Determination
on sanction
“Dr Irwin
The Panel hereby revokes the order for the
suspension of your registration made by the Interim Orders Panel on 3 February
2005.
On 6 July 2004 you were
cautioned at Guildford Police Station for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971. You had admitted that on 18
October 2003 you had in your possession 30 x 20 mg tablets of Temazepam, a
controlled drug of class C, with intent to supply it to Mr PK.
When you were interviewed
under caution by the Surrey and Sussex Police on
2 March 2004 you admitted
that on 18 October 2003 at Moss Pharmacy, Cranleigh, Surrey, you
self-prescribed using your GMC registration number and obtained
30 x 20mg tablets of
Temazepam, a class C controlled drug.
You travelled to the Isle of
Man on 19 October 2003 to visit Mr PK and you had in your possession, a
quantity of approximately 60 Temazepam tablets. You have admitted that you intended to supply Mr K with the
Temazepam to assist him to commit suicide.
You also obtained travel-sickness tablets to provide for
Mr K to take with the
Temazepam to facilitate his oral retention of the tablets. In the event you did not supply to Mr K the
Temazepam as he had become too ill to take it himself.
The Panel has found that
your actions as set out above were unprofessional, inappropriate, irresponsible
and likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
You also admitted that you
self-prescribed, during 2003, approximately 140 20mg tablets of Temazepam,
using your GMC registration. At the
interview under caution on 2 March 2004, you further admitted that you had
self-prescribed and obtained, using your GMC registration, 20 Temazepam tablets
on 13 December 2003, the day after your arrest.
On 25 January 2005 and 31
January 2005, you self-prescribed and obtained from different pharmacies using
your GMC registration, 30 x 20mg tablets of Temazepam on each occasion. You issued the prescriptions immediately
before the scheduled hearing of your case before the Interim Orders Panel on 3
February 2005. You had been self-prescribing Temazepam over a period of time,
for the purposes of stockpiling it.
The Panel has found that
your actions were inappropriate, irresponsible and unprofessional.
In all the circumstances,
your actions fell well below the standard expected of a registered medical
practitioner and the Panel determined that by reason of the Police caution and
the above misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.
The Panel has referred to
the May 2001 edition of ‘Good Medical Practice’; in particular it has noted the
requirements that a medical practitioner must be honest and trustworthy and
avoid abusing his position as a doctor.
Furthermore, paragraph 11 of the same edition states: “Some parts of
medical practice are governed by law or are regulated by other statutory
bodies. You must observe and keep up to
date with the laws and statutory codes of practice which affect your
work”. The Panel has found that you
have been in breach of these requirements by committing the serious criminal
offence of possessing Temazepam, a class C controlled drug with intent to
supply.
Furthermore, you admitted
that you dishonestly self-prescribed this drug ostensibly for your own use when
in fact it was intended for another. This, together with your repeated self-prescribing
of supplies of Temazepam for the purposes of stockpiling for your own use
against the advice of your general practitioner, amounts to an abuse of the
trust placed in you as a doctor. In all
the circumstances, you have abused your position as a doctor.
Medical practitioners have a
duty to act honestly and within the law, and uphold the trust placed in
them. The matters before this Panel are
serious and give rise to a clear and obvious risk to patients and could seriously
undermine the confidence and trust that the public is entitled to place in the
medical profession.
The Panel was concerned also
about your lack of insight into the seriousness of your actions and your lack
of professional judgement.
The Panel has considered the submissions made by
Miss Foster on behalf of the GMC as to the appropriate sanction it should
impose, your comments to the Panel and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has also had regard to the GMC’s
Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the GMC’s publication ‘Good Medical
Practice’. The Panel is conscious of the fact that the purpose of sanctions is
not to be punitive, but to protect patients and the public interest. Public
interest includes not only the protection of patients but also the maintenance
of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper
standards of conduct.
In
determining the appropriate sanction in your case, the Panel first considered
whether it would be sufficient to place conditions on your registration. In doing so it has had regard to the issue
of proportionality and has balanced the interests of patients and the public
interest against your interests. Any conditions would need to be appropriate,
proportionate, workable and measurable. The Panel considers that your actions
were so serious that it is insufficient, in the public interest, to impose this
sanction. Further, the Panel considers that it would not be possible to
formulate any appropriate conditions.
The Panel then went on to
consider whether it would be sufficient to direct that your registration be
suspended. Your actions amounted to a
serious abuse of your position of trust. The Panel is concerned that you do not
fully accept the seriousness and potential consequences of your actions for
which you have expressed no remorse.
The Panel has also concluded that there would be no remedial value to a
suspension of registration.
Your actions were:
- A serious departure from the relevant professional standards set out in Good Medical Practice
- An abuse of position of trust
- Dishonest
- An indication of persistent lack of insight
The Panel has therefore
concluded that it would not be sufficient to suspend your registration. Accordingly, the Panel has no alternative
but to direct the erasure of your name from the medical register.
This
means that, unless you exercise your right of appeal, this direction will take
effect 28 days from when written notice of this determination is deemed to have
been served upon you. A note explaining
your right of appeal will be provided to you.
Having reached a decision
that your name should be erased from the medical register, the Panel is minded
to consider whether your registration should also be suspended immediately. The
Panel will now invite submissions from Miss Foster and then from you, Dr Irwin,
on this matter.”
Determination
on immediate sanction
“Dr Irwin
The Panel
has considered the submissions made by Miss Foster as to whether or not the
Panel should direct that your registration be suspended with immediate
effect. The Panel notes that you do not
oppose this course of action.
In view of the serious nature of matters
for which you received a Police caution and the findings in relation to your
misconduct, the Panel considers that it is necessary, for the protection of
members of the public, in the public interest and in your own interests, to
exercise its powers under section 38 (1) of the Medical Act 1983, as
amended. The Panel has therefore
directed that your registration shall be suspended with effect from today.
The effect of this direction
is that your registration will be suspended from today. Unless you exercise your right of appeal,
the direction for the erasure of your name from the Medical Register as
previously announced, will take effect on the expiry of the 28 day appeal
period.
That concludes the hearing.”
Confirmed
October 2005 Chairman
