Obama leads in USA election campaign

 

 CClick on the photo to read Obama's Plan on Economic Patriotism.

BBC cover up of child abuse

Photograph: Sir Jim Savile on the left and   Mr Entwistle, the new BBC Director general on the right who has to deal with skeletons in the BBC cupboard.

It would appear that BBC covered up child abuse (by Jim Savile and others) within corporation for many years and also obstructed some of the most talented journalists who were exposing it.

BBC executive obstructed more programs by their own staff than the public would ever know. For example, one of the programs obstructed by BBC management in 1999, was the planned TV program about the wearing of religious uniforms by social workers who work in mental health where one would find patients such as those raped by Catholic (and other) clergy. At that time, Director General was of course, a Catholic and so was the British Prime Minister, although secretly. It is as if this lot worked together for their power base in a selfish manner, and not in the interest of public. Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist who exposed the wearing of religious uniforms in mental health to the media in November 1999 was firstly invited by BBC TV and then following BBC management censorship dis-invited. That particular BBC program's makers were disappointed and embarrassed by their own management.

Sexual discrimination against men so prevalent in British culture means that even today men are particularly oppressed when it comes to telling what happened to them. They have to endure painful reminders of the sexual traumas (and lack of treatment). Establishment would do everything they can to cover up the truth. Presumably, many went to religious schools and are a bit awkward about it. Hardly, a child's choice to go to oppressive schools.

Notable exceptions do exist in politics when it comes to issues related to justice and mental health. Apart from PM, David Cameron, another is Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, ex Secretary of State for Justice who wrote an autobiography recently and just how terrified he was when he was approached by a paedophile who wanted to take him to the bushes. He run for his life and manged to escape. But many children did not manage to escape. Some were killed and some killed themselves.

Labour government covered up suicide statistics from doctors' and public knowledge. Conservative-Liberal Coalition started publishing suicide statistics again. Doctors4Justice campaigned successfully for publication of suicide statistics.

Men always appear to have worse outcomes for suicides than women. There are reasons for that. Men are exposed to significant sexual discrimination in mental health with past collusion of BBC, medical regulators, doctors' union (British Medical Association), Department of Health and medical defense bodies. Repeatedly all have been involved in making life difficult for those who have suffered abuse in childhood. The majority of  those abused by clergy are male children, of course. Girls are evil creatures in most patriarchal religions.

However, there is seductive hold patriarchal religions have on some men and women. Power of association with Godly business meant that victims of abuse have been at mostly ignored, at worse abused further by the system and some converted to drug addicts by their own doctors and psychiatrists through relentless prescribing of benzodiazepines while denied psychotherapy and justice through legal system.

The system also abused journalists who investigated these unpleasant matters and punished doctors who attempted to improve the matters for their mentally ill patients. Medical regulator, The General Medical Council spent an afternoon or two giving pseudo support to child protection by writing some Guidelines while in reality it is still busy looking for ways to do in those who speak up. Thirteen years after the issue of the wearing of religious uniforms has been raised very publicly the medical regulator has firmly decided that keeping eyes closed is pleasant.

Interestingly, GMC's Chief Executive also worked at BBC. The Chairman of BBC Board Lord Patten quite rightly said that there were people who knew about abuse but did nothing about it

At The General Medical Council, Fitness to Practice hearings against doctors have been fixed for years by the head of Fitness to Practice Empanellment rumored to be a member of Opus Dei. Religious workers sitting at the General Medical Council's  Fitness to Practise Panels are simply used as executioners of the deviant doctors who criticize the system. Religious army v medical Whistleblowers. Old recipe.

When after much pressure on GMC, Head of Empanellment was eventually replaced recently, the new head, (of supposedly independent Medical Practitioners Tribunal) but old pair of hands at GMC, continues with cover ups and refuses to discipline, for example, vexatious doctor who has been a member of Fitness to Practice Panel for years, is a member of Labour Party and supported persecution of professionals (doctors and lawyers) when it personally suited him to cover up his won professional misconduct. It is known that he conducted his private practice using NHS facilities without the permission of NHS management or Secretary of State for Health contrary to UK law. GMC could not care less if a doctor breaks the law as long as he is a member of their own gang. This particular doctor made false allegations against Dr Helen Bright to GMC and against solicitor Yvonne Hossack to Solicitors Regulation Authority. GMC cannot get enough of him. He is such a good executioner who owes GMC his own professional life. So, yes, one can see why GMC enjoys their power over him.

GMC got their panel of inter-faith workers to judge Dr Bright including a Catholic preacher for a span covering at least twelve years.

The head of GMC's information access team refused to disclose under Freedom of Information Act 2000 to Dr Bright who were the members of Preliminary Proceedings Committee who looked at the complaints against her. One was a member of government inter-faith group. Nice one, GMC.

GMC refused to disclose to Dr Helen Bright who are the members of their Ethics and Standards Team. Religious workers could be attracted to regulation of other people's morality and ethics and one can expect them to flock to such committees. They are also likely to avoid dealing with the issues pertinent to good practice of medicine. Hence, GMC's secrecy.

It is  religious bias, and power that comes first and public interest second.

Power To The Online People

Doctors convicted of sex offences and regulation

Daily Mail newspaper has published on 25th September 2012 an article written by Paul Bentley on doctors found guilty of sex offences (Click on the above image published by Daily Mail to read more) and medical regulation.

Using Freedom of Information Act for discoveries Daily Mail identified 31 doctors registered by GMC who were convicted for sexual offences the majority of which (21 doctors) were for trying to buy services from prostitutes. Four cases involved child pornography. Presumably, watching it. There were no convictions for rape on doctors currently registered with GMC.

Sexual abuse is an important,  emotional and complex issue. Medical regulator would like to have more power such as being able to strike off medical register  doctors convicted of rape without having to have Fitness to Practice hearings. One can see that there would be some problems for GMC trying to have a hearing if the doctors was in prison, for example, but video link can be put into prison.

GMC's CEO mentioned offence of rape being one where GMC would like to have automatic right to erase those doctors convicted of such offence. Well, it is very easy to get convicted of anything in some places in the world or anywhere under certain circumstances, as a QC who advised GMC would know.

 None of the sexual offenders on medical register now have been convicted of rape. However, if one can do automatic strike offs in the case of sex offenders, next,  one can argue one can do it in other cases too where, for example, medical prescribing error led to death(s) of patients and there is no dispute about the facts. So, there is danger of human rights breaches: sentences being imposed without trials. It is also rather unlikely that GMC would want to remove any sex offenders very readily from their register whatever power they are given right now because it is an organisation that has shown gender and racial bias for over 150 years. Yet, we all know that certain offences are not compatible with medical ethics and it is detrimental to the reputation of medical profession to have some sexual offenders treated too leniently.

The General Medical Council Fitness to Practice panels appear to get it very wrong sometimes and can be too lenient or too harsh towards doctors.

Recently, the General Medical Council (GMC) did not argue in their evidence presented  at Parliamentary Health Select Committee review hearing in September 2012 that they should have the right to correct their own mistake when they have been too harsh. Instead, GMC argued that only about 2% of Fitness to Practice decisions are successfully appealed in the High Court. GMC did not state that about 50% of doctors lack legal representation at their fitness to practice hearings and that High Court is partial to GMC, always stating that GMC panel is best suited to decide on the matters of fact and impairment of medical  practice which has no legal definition at all. Therefore, the fact that there is a low success rate in doctors' appeals against GMC Fitness to practice decisions is actually, meaningless to an extent, when all facts of litigation are considered properly.


For years, GMC has been nothing more than the service station catering to the needs of NHS incompetent medical managers, persecuting whistleblowers, destroying their careers, reputations and livelihoods. For example, when it comes to the rights for patients to speak up of sexual abuse in their childhood when the abusers are clergy GMC have done everything they could to avoid proper consultation with public and profession on the issue despite being given ample help and advise on how to proceed. GMC have supported wearing of religious uniforms by mental health workers when working with mentally ill men some of whom are victims of rape by clergy and absolutely terrified of reminders of their trauma (religious uniform acts as the reminder of trauma). GMC do know that special measures are used when examining women victims of rape, for example, female doctors collect evidence and police woman interviews victim. Why discriminate against men? Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination. Is GMC trying to please their own clergy members sitting at GMC? Where is public interest assessment, human right to free speech? Or is it that ultimately, the image of man has to be that of the all powerful creature who cannot be seriously damaged and mentally scarred for ever. The image of God is for some people like that: all powerful. As one of GMC Fitness to Practice panelists (Christian extremist) wrote in his book - it is important that God's image is that of man. Of course, other religions have different representations or none.

Ultimately, this is GMC's bid for more power, not justice which includes fairness of process. Justice  means that when GMC FTP panels get it wrong and harm doctors and patients (by removing good doctors) there should be GMC officials standing up and admitting their errors.

GMC are not ignorant or powerless. They have the resources given to them by public and medical profession, but using some resources is definitely, very uncomfortable. A bit like spending money on dentist to pull the rotten teeth out. GMC would have to prove themselves that they really do care about justice for all. Did GMC ask CHRE (Commission for Health Regulatory Excellence) to consider sex offenders and appeal to the High Court if GMC's Fitness to Practice decisions are too lenient. I do not know. If they did but were not happy with CHRE they could have asked for judicial review of that refusal decision in the High Court. I have not heard that they ever did. Rather, there is cosying up of one institution to another. Hugs and kisses all around, also known as good team working between different institutions.

We do know that extensive evidence has been sent to Medical Practitioners Tribunal on one doctor, for example, Labour Party member who sits there and has breached various laws and Good Medical Practice, but not old Labour policies during Blair phase. GMC refused to investigate him but they do have the power to remove  panelist who is not fit for the purpose. However, they will not. Is this because GMC leadership was appointed during Labour and still follows policies that even Labour Party does not follow any longer? Or is it  that Medical Practitioners Tribunal lacks true independence form GMC because the head of empanellment is old GMC hand having worked for them for two years at least?

During the Blair years religion was pushed around, religious panelists appointed to GMC and yes, there is plenty of evidence in some religious texts that sex with minors is OK..  GMC know that. I doubt very much that interviews of people, prospective fitness to practice panelists who are members of religious orders and those who are not members of religious orders goes as far as to explore their attitudes on child sexual abuse, women, homosexuals, transgender people, abortions, ethnic minorities, mentally ill people and so on.

So far ninety two doctors have died during GMC Fitness to Practice investigations and GMC have refused to release their names and their ethnicity. It has been found that religious identity is linked with national identity according to some social research in a number of European countries.

Are ethnic minorities more likely to be subject of criminal proceedings and GMC FTP investigations? Our educated guess is: yes. Were there ethnic minority doctors who were treated differently for sexual offences by GMC Fitness to Practice than their English counterparts? The answer to that is: possibly so. Some were struck off medical register easily for a single allegation not involving rape or child pornography or sexual assault or exhibitionism.. Yes, on a word of a single person and no evidence. We do not know if GMC informed Labour MP Virendra Sharma or Daily Mail of such cases.

                                                                                   Photo of Virendra Sharma MP

Enemies of the Internet

Dr Freddy Patel erased from medical register

Dr FreddyPatel registered under name of Mohmed Saeed Sulema has been erased from medical register by the General Medical Council (GMC) in United Kingdom. It appears that he served institution(s) for a long time in cover ups which may partially explain why he has been erased only now. His alleged dishonesty would be acceptable to the GMC and to his colleagues if it was not for an American tourist making a video recording of newspapers seller's death when he was hit by a policeman and handing video in to authorities. The high profile of some of the cases Dr Freddy Patel reported on as forensic pathologist came to the attention of the media causing public outcry. This made medical profession look bad and GMC was forced to act. Here is Guardian reporting. 

Dr Freddy Saeed was not erased for his post-mortem failures in the case of Ms E who was a prostitute and murdered. The duty of doctor, in this case forensic pathologist, is not to judge the corpse because of her lifestyle but to report impartially on post-mortem findings. Ms E murderer went on to attack other women. Dr Freddy Patel was erased for his deficient post-mortem reporting in a case of a man.

Dr Freddie Patel is only one of the several experts known to Doctors4Justice whose medical reports have attracted criticism because of their glaring omissions, dishonesty and conclusions contrary to Good Medical Practice. These experts have been reported to the GMC. The General Medical Council is more protective of their own Fitness to Practice Panel members, or those expert witnesses who have assisted GMC in their fitness to practice hearings despite extensive evidence known to the GMC of the breaches of Good Medical Practice by those experts.

The difference between some of those complaints to GMC about expert witnesses and Dr Freddy Patel's case is that media have been misled and had to pay a heavy financial and reputation price because of that. For example, Telegraph in the defamation case won by LJ Sedley. Media were misinformed that elderly would die if relocated from one residential home to another. With such dramatic claims by experts no wonder media reported it passionately. In fact, the experts misled the courts. LJ Stephen Sedley in High Court saw through it but GMC willfully closed their eyes to expert witness failings when these were reported to them. Dr Freddy Patel is, clearly, not English, but those experts whom GMC protected are. One works for GMC's Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service as Fitness to Practice Panelist even today! Despite having hundreds of pages of evidence against him, GMC extended his contract further into 2013. This expert worked in private practice and used NHS facilities without NHS permission or permission of Secretary of State for Health as required by law. It did not occur to GMC they should remove him for repeated dishonesty over many years and from judging other doctors.

Previous GMC FTP findings in the case of Freddy Patel.

Like in a game of chess where there is a bishop figure GMC felt it necessary to employ a Reverand to judge Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel. GMC does not appear to consider conflicts of interest but merely allows Fitness to Practice  panelists to report conflicts whatever they like and then GMC pay no attention to it unless it suits them. The same GMC rules on reporting of conflicts of interests are not equally upheld amongst all the fitness to practise panellists. Contrary to the obligation under the GMC policy to update their interests when members do not GMC Head of Fitness to Practice Empanellment tolerates it and furthermore justifies it. We do not have evidence that Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service is acting independently of GMC. Although a part-time judge has been appointed to oversee it and he is responsible to Parliament, all the power has remained in the hands of GMC who investigate complaints and fix the panel membership as they like. Women and ethnic minorities remain at risk (that then makes it to the number which in effect is the majority of doctors) when appearing before GMC fitness to practice panel, because even those panelists known and complained about as having attitudinal problems are not only allowed to remain there but their contract is actually, extended.

Current:

 Fitness to Practise Panel

Determination on sanction

Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema PATEL

Dr Patel

Having determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and deficient professional performance, the Panel has now considered what action, if any, it should take in relation to your registration.

In doing so, the Panel has carefully considered all the evidence adduced throughout this hearing together with the submissions made by Mr Jackson QC on behalf of the GMC, and those made by Mr Hopkins QC, on your behalf.

Mr Jackson took the Panel through the chronology of your involvement with Fitness to Practise procedures.  This has included your appearance before the Professional Conduct Committee in January 2002, your appearance before a Fitness to Practise Panel which concluded in September 2010 and a further appearance before a Fitness to Practise Panel which concluded in March 2011.  This latter Panel reviewed the matters before the Panel in September 2010 and also considered new matters in relation to Miss E.  This Panel has reviewed the matters before the Panel which concluded in March 2011 and also reached findings against you in a new case related to Mr Tomlinson.  Mr Jackson referred this Panel to some of the evidence before it, and also to the comments it made in its determination on impairment.

Mr Jackson referred the Panel to the GMC’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance (April 2009, with 7 August 2009 revisions and March 2012 revisions).  He reminded the Panel of the range of sanctions available to it.  It is the GMC’s submission that the appropriate sanction in this case is one of erasure. 

Mr Jackson submitted that the starting point is the gravity and the persistence of the departures from required professional standards over a number of years.  He submitted that the issues of competence, insight and probity remain current, and serious concerns remain in relation to your fitness to practise. 

Mr Jackson submitted that your failures are serious, especially when considering the issue of future risks posed if you were to return to practice as a forensic pathologist, reporting on any post mortem examinations and giving evidence in relation to the same. 

Mr Jackson reminded the Panel that there have been two findings of dishonesty against you.  In one case this was in the context of GMC/Fitness to Practise proceedings and in one case in the course of your practice.  He submitted that serious dishonesty, when repeated, may be inconsistent with continued registration.  Mr Jackson, with specific reference to insight, referred the Panel to various aspects of your conduct.

Mr Hopkins made submissions on the basis of the previous Panel’s determinations and also this Panel’s determination.  He also referred the Panel to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance and the relevant paragraphs contained therein.

Mr Hopkins invited the Panel to consider that any return to practice could be limited as follows:

• To perform only routine section 19 post mortem examinations.
• Not to carry out post mortem examinations on children.
• Not to carry out forensic post mortem examinations.

Mr Hopkins submitted that there is a public interest in allowing an experienced pathologist to provide a service that is of general benefit.  He told the Panel of your experience, over 30 years, and submitted that pathologists with your depth of experience are in short supply.

Mr Hopkins reminded the Panel of its findings and submitted that, but for its finding of dishonesty, he would have submitted that the appropriate sanction in relation to clinical misconduct and deficient professional performance would have been conditions that allowed a return to directly supervised practice.  However, Mr Hopkins submitted that you recognised that your dishonesty potentially places this case in the sanction category of suspension or erasure.

Mr Hopkins invited the Panel to consider the mitigating circumstances present in your case, including but not limited to, the effect of Fitness to Practise proceedings on your ability to practise.  He observed that you have effectively been unable to do so for a period of nearly two years.

Mr Hopkins referred the Panel to the effect of your suspension on your personal circumstances which has included considerable financial hardship to you, your wife and your children.  It was submitted that you would wish to return to limited practice in order to improve your financial circumstances and to augment your pension income.

Mr Hopkins addressed the Panel in relation to remediation and the steps you have taken to remediate your practice and your recognition that there is more work to be done.

In relation to insight, Mr Hopkins reminded the Panel that you conceded impairment at the last hearing and also at this hearing.  Mr Hopkins went on to illustrate your insight with reference to your admissions and your acknowledgement that your practice was out-dated and sub-standard in a number of respects in this case concerning Mr Tomlinson.

In conclusion, Mr Hopkins submitted that the public interest is not best served by erasure which would be neither necessary nor proportionate.  He submitted that if the Panel felt it necessary to take action on your registration beyond conditions, then a further short period of suspension would be a proportionate response to the adverse findings.  He further submitted that it is in the public interest that you, as a highly experienced pathologist, are permitted to return to limited practice with safeguards.

Whilst the Panel has borne in mind the submissions made, the issue as to what sanction, if any, to impose is one for it to determine exercising its own judgement.

Throughout its deliberations the Panel has borne in mind its duty to protect the public and the public interest.  The public interest includes, amongst other things, protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour, as set out in the GMC’s guidance “Good Medical Practice”.  The Panel has taken account of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.

The Panel has also applied the principle of proportionality, weighing the public interest against your own interests.  It recognises that the purpose of the sanctions is not to be punitive but to protect patients and the wider public interest, although they may have a punitive effect.

The Panel has borne in mind the facts found proved in this case, as set out in its previous determination on the facts and also its determination on impairment and its detailed reasoning.

The Panel has considered your personal circumstances, and taken them into account, while it considered the mitigation put forward by Mr Hopkins on your behalf. 

The Panel has also taken account of the bundle of testimonials submitted.  Those testimonials describe you as helpful and courteous.  However, they do not address your current competence, they date from two years ago, and were prepared at a time when the authors would not have been aware of the particulars of the allegation against you in relation to the case concerning Mr Tomlinson.

The Panel first considered whether to conclude your case by taking no action.  It took account of paragraph 48 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance.  Given the seriousness of the multiple findings against you, the Panel has determined that there are no exceptional circumstances present, and it would be wholly insufficient and inappropriate to take no action on your registration.

The Panel next considered whether it would be sufficient to place conditions on your registration.  It has borne in mind that any conditions would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. 

It has taken account of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance at paragraphs 57 and 58, which state:

“57.    Conditions might be most appropriate in cases involving the doctor’s …, performance or following a single clinical incident or where there is evidence of shortcomings in a specific area or areas of the doctor’s practice. Panels will need to be satisfied that the doctor has displayed insight into his/her problems, and that there is potential for the doctor to respond positively to remediation/retraining and to supervision of his/her work.

58.     The purpose of conditions is to enable the doctor to … remedy any deficiencies in his/her practice whilst in the meantime protecting patients from harm…”

The Panel considers that there remain identifiable areas of your practice where further remediation is required.  Through your Counsel you have accepted this.  The Panel accepts that it is difficult to remedy a deficiency that requires a ‘hands on’ approach while you are suspended.

However, the Panel notes that the various Fitness to Practise proceedings have concerned a number of incidents over a number of years. 

The Panel is concerned about the evidence before it and its own conclusion that you have a closed mind-set and are unwilling to concede to conclusions of others in the face of overwhelming evidence.  When you gave your evidence to the Panel in March and May 2012, the Panel has now learned you were undertaking a period of remediation in relation to the concerns of the previous Panels.  Despite this, your evidence to it lacked insight into your failings and did not demonstrate any change in attitude in relation to the post mortem examination carried out on Mr Tomlinson. 

Your rigid mind-set, illustrated by your inability to reflect on the case of Mr Tomlinson, and your unwarranted confidence in your own abilities, does not convince this Panel that it would be appropriate to impose conditions, even with the most stringent supervision, on your registration.  The Panel considers that you have a deep-seated attitudinal problem. 

Additionally, the Panel has found that you were dishonest in attempting to conceal the fact of a first post mortem report in the second report relating to Mr Tomlinson.  This was the second finding of dishonesty, the first being in relation to information contained within your CV in the case relating to Miss E.   

Having considered all these matters the Panel has determined that conditions would be insufficient to protect the public and would not be in the public interest. 

The Panel then went on to consider whether a period of suspension would be an appropriate sanction.  It has taken account of paragraph 69 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance, which states:

“69.    Suspension has a deterrent effect and can be used to send out a signal to the doctor, the profession and public about what is regarded as behaviour unbefitting a registered medical practitioner…”

The Panel considered paragraph 75 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance where a list is provided so as to assist a Panel’s decision as to whether suspension is appropriate.  The following factors in that list are particularly relevant to you:

“75.         This sanction may therefore be appropriate when some or all of the following factors are apparent…

-        No evidence of harmful, deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems.

-        No evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since incident.

-        Panel is satisfied doctor has insight and does not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour.”

The Panel does believe that you have a deep-seated attitudinal problem.  The Panel also believes that for reasons given earlier, it is not convinced that there will not be a repetition of similar behaviour.  It notes that there has already been repetition of similar behaviour as a number of the findings in the cases of Miss E and Mr Tomlinson show similar failings. 

You have twice been suspended for your failings in relation to post mortem examinations you have carried out.  You have now appeared before a Fitness to Practise Panel three times.  The failings against you both historically and presently involve five separate post mortem examinations.  It is of grave concern to this Panel that, despite efforts by previous Panels to guide you as to remediation, your evidence in relation to this case concerning Mr Tomlinson was far from reassuring in terms of what you have learned and how you have modified your thinking in relation to interpretations of findings and clinico-pathological correlation. 

The Panel considers that the most worrying aspect of this case is your lack of insight.  In considering insight, it has taken account of paragraph 34 of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance which states:

“34.    This ‘insight’ - the expectation that a doctor will be able to stand back and accept that, with hindsight, they should have behaved differently, and that it is expected that he/she will take steps to prevent a reoccurrence - is an important factor in a hearing. When assessing whether a doctor has insight the panel will need to take into account whether he/she has demonstrated insight consistently throughout the hearing, e.g. has not given any untruthful evidence to the panel or falsified documents…”

The Panel is not satisfied that you have significant insight into your failings and is not satisfied that there is no risk of repetition.  In reaching this conclusion the Panel reminded itself that you failed to recognise any contrary view to your conclusion as to the cause of death of Mr Tomlinson, even when this was robustly challenged by three pathologists, and your strong assertion that all the matters relating to Mr Tomlinson were within your own knowledge.

The Panel has determined, that for the reasons detailed, suspending your registration for a further period would not be sufficient in the public interest.

Therefore, the Panel has deemed the only appropriate sanction to be one of  erasure.  It has reached this decision on two separate bases.

First, is the harm done to public confidence in the profession through the failures in the post mortem examinations of Miss B, Baby C, Mrs D, Miss E and Mr Tomlinson.  These failures also illustrate the potential harm to what Dr Fegan-Earl described as the ‘end users’ of the coronial system, for example, a potential failure to detect clandestine homicides in either section 19 or section 20 post mortem examinations.  The Panel is of the view that these matters alone take it beyond the question of suspension and therefore to erasure.

Second, the Panel then considered whether your dishonesty at a previous Fitness to Practise Panel and in the present case concerning Mr Tomlinson, of themselves, constituted grounds for erasure and the Panel determined that it did so.  Dishonesty destroys the public’s trust in the individual doctor and undermines both public confidence in the profession, and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.  Your dishonesty confirms the Panel’s finding at the impairment stage that your integrity cannot be relied upon.

Accordingly, the Panel determined that, in the public interest, it has no option other than to direct that your name be erased from the Medical Register.  The Panel took this decision after careful consideration of all the factors in your case.

This means that, unless you lodge an appeal, your name will be erased from the Medical Register 28 days from the date on which notification of this decision is deemed to have been served on you.  The current suspension on your registration will remain in force until any appeal is decided or until the erasure is effective.

That concludes the case.

Dr Peter Jefferys and Barristers

Dr Peter Jefferys (top left), United Kingdom's Labour Party member, self-declared atheist, who has owed a home (converted church in Norfolk) has been a Fitness to Practice panelist since 2001 at the General Medical Council (GMC), regulator of medical profession in UK. He failed to declare all his conflicts of interests as required by GMC policy on declaration of interests. GMC has rules that panelists have to declare their interests and update them. He did not and GMC did not either for at least NINE YEARS and up to present day!

In 2002 Dr Peter Jefferys wrote to Simon Haywood, investigator at GMC stating his interest in Dr Helen Bright's case. Dr Jefferys complained to GMC that a Catholic nun was upset because Dr Bright stated that  uniforms are not worn in psychiatry by mental health workers, a true fact for most of UK.  At the time of his complaint UK was ruled by Labour Party with Mr Anthony Blair as Prime Minister. After leaving the government he declared himself as a Catholic.

GMC kept it secret from Dr Bright that Dr Jefferys declaration of interest in her case was late and contrary to GMC's policy for many years. GMC refused to comply with law and Dr Bright's request under section 7(1) of Data Protection Act 1998 to disclose information held on her by GMC. Quite simply, GMC misapplied section 31 of Data Protection Act to deny the information to Dr Helen Bright for years.

GMC continued to persecute Dr Bright and fix religiously biased Fitness to Practice Panels for many years. The head of empanelment was Ms Graziella Oragano (presumably from Catholic background if one can judge anything by names). She departed in April 2012 after complaints to Parliament for a couple years about the fixing of trials at GMC.

There is an interesting historical figure that of Hanging Judge Jefferys. Jefferys have been traditionally Catholic (see Hanging judge Jefferys picture bottom right, allow for age difference and whatever else is required and see the facial similarities, if any, between him and Dr Peter Jefferys). The relatives of "Hanging Judge" Jefferys were frightened of reprisals after he was imprisoned in London Tower when trying to escape. They found refuge in Catholic monasteries. Here is a bit of history:

Religion and politics were intertwined throughout James' public life. He openly opposed the Test Act of 1673, which barred all Catholics and Dissenters from holding administrative positions; James relinquished the post of Lord High Admiral and went abroad. The Whig Parliament of 1679 strove to exclude James from the succession, and failed only because Charles II dissolved Parliament. Within months of his accession, James had to crush a rebellion of Protestants who rallied around his nephew James, Duke of Monmouth and son of Charles II. The Protestants were easily defeated, and James exhibited little toleration: Monmouth was captured and beheaded. James appointed Judge Jeffries to preside over the "Bloody Assizes" which executed, tortured, or sent into slavery the Protestant rebels. James ambitiously appointed Catholics to high positions although loyal Tory councilors advised against it. As a result, both Tories and Whigs turned against him.

It is a historical fact that ladies in waiting made money from their sale of rebels into slavery.

In the time of Dr Peter Jefferys and his professional work with regulators it has been barristers who profited from injustice done to doctors, for example, by the fixing of Fitness to Practice Panels at GMC by Ms Oragano in such a manner that it was more or less guaranteed that doctor would lose. Injustice is really good for business. Dysfunctional units at their core have addiction to chaos and at least one person at GMC must have loved it. When doctors lost their Fitness to Practise cases, there would be appeals to superior courts and when doctors could no longer afford legal fees the modern day equivalent of "slavery" of bankruptcy, and low paid unprofessional work was an option if doctors stayed alive.


GMC grew millions (no need to pay tax as a charity) because of the Labour Party agreement to allow GMC to register as a charity (charities do not pay tax). This happened despite the High Court and Court of Appeal ruling to the contrary that GMC could not be a charity. Thus, money was made available to GMC to persecute doctors, dissidents of government policies which were breaking the EU law, for example, in return to the government for this favor of not paying the tax. It is not clear how many people died because of political persecutions but on the balance of probabilities many did. When competent doctors are eliminated and there is shortage of doctors, patients die, on the balance of probabilities. This is what happened after Dr Jefferys dimissed Dr Helen Bright from Northwick Park Hospital and he had no replacement for her. A couple of patients committed suicides. GMC covered up nicely for him since 2003 when they heard about it for the first time. Hospital is liable for such deaths when patients are under their care. It was in Dr Jefferys, personal interest to have Dr Bright's reputation smeared by allegations of bad behavior rather than any allegations that she harmed any patients. Dr Bright has never been found to be danger to any patients or public by any regulator. It was a brilliant and cunning plot by Dr Jefferys which GMC was keen to embrace because GMC themselves never managed to completely separate the politics and religion from their own interests. Patients and public interest are of course, completely irrelevant when it comes to real life, and power games as many doctors have learned by now.

GMC have never considered what impact it has on witnesses, for example, appearing before GMC FTP to know or not to know, as the case may be, that Dr Peter Jefferys sat on their regulatory bodies. At the last count Dr Peter Jefferys sat at regulatory bodies regulating at least eighteen different professions. There would have been so much opportunity for the vindictive side of his character to be put to use.

Dr Peter Jefferys embarked on sitting on various fitness to practice panels of various professional bodies including Bar Council's Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee because he had interest to do so.  GMC was informed of this fact but GMC refused to publish his conflicts of interests and remove Dr Jefferys from GMC. Presumably, this is to do with the fact that key people were appointed at GMC during Labour Government, Dr Peter Jefferys is/was a member of Labour Party and they merely stuck together irrespective of law, or public interests.

How would barristers feel making submissions at GMC and in superior courts knowing that Dr Jefferys worked and has connections with their regulatory body? Would the interests of their clients really come first? 

If they did not know, but their clients interests suffered anyway, as they would in the hands of unaccountable regulator's FTP panel fixer, where is justice?




Dr Peter Jefferys has worked as non-executive director of Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health Trust and now Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.  AGAIN THERE IS NO DECLARATION THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE OF BAR COUNCIL.This time his declared interests are:


Peter Jefferys joined the trust in September 2011, leaving London after 30 years as a consultant in the psychiatry of old age at Northwick Park Hospital, in Harrow, to live permanently in Norfolk. He has experience as medical director of a community and mental health trust, and has been involved in professional regulation with the General Medical Council, the Health Professionals Council, and the General Social Care Council.  He has also been involved in a wide range of associated clinical practice as a second opinion appointed doctor for the Care Quality Commission, and as clinical adviser to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.


Dr Jefferys has reasons why he does not declare that he was a member of Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of Bar Council just for one year. Normally, appointment is for several years. Barristers would be interested to know why he was there just for one year. Appointment at Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of Bar Council would have been a useful to him in his case against his instructing solicitor Yvonne Hossack when he was her expert witness and complained about her to Law Society, after she complained about him first to GMC, for example.

Dr Peter Jefferys also worked as advisor to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, yet another interest not to be found on GMC website today. Patients and relatives complain against doctors and to Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman as well as to GMC. Would the complainants know who assessed the validity of their complaints in different institutions?

No conflicts of interests, of course, not. it is not just that conflicts have to be declared but they have to be assessed. Willful blindness all around.

Remarkably, on oath when giving evidence against solicitor Yvonne Hossack at Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Dr Peter Jefferys claimed that GMC have to have consent of patients for their identities to be disclosed to them. Since when did GMC get the consent of patients in Dr Harold Shipman's case? Or in the cases of those who are unable to give their consent because of fear or severity of dementia or where it would be unreasonable to seek their consent?

Dr Jefferys has regarded himself as the expert on mental capacity and has worked at GMC. However, none of these credentials are necessary to know some basic facts: GMC needs to have the names of patients in order to investigate the complaints properly should they feel the need to do so.




 

Niall Dickson, CEO of the General Medical Council and Dr Richard Alexander Scott

In recognition of the importance of the case of Dr Richard Alexander Scott (decided by GMC's Investigation Committee on 14-6-2012)  Niall Dickson GMC's CEO (photograph above) has issued the following statement:

'Our guidance is clear -  doctors must not impose their own beliefs on their patients or cause them distress by inappropriately expressing their own views.

'In this case the panel gave careful consideration to the evidence given by Dr Scott and his patient. It concluded that Dr Scott had gone too far, trying to impose his own religious beliefs on a vulnerable individual. As this is a clear breach of our guidance, the panel concluded that we were right to issue Dr Scott with a warning.

"This is not about religion, it is about respecting patients and making sure doctors do not use the incredibly privileged position they hold to push their own beliefs, however strongly held they may be.

'This case has been contentious and received a lot of comment - our aim throughout has been confined to make sure patients are protected and that our guidance is followed.'

We have been pessimistic that GMC would do the right thing in this case and it is reassuring that we have been proved wrong.

GMC does not have an easy job to do at the best of times and it would help if the political system outside GMC was up to date. UK is still in the process of moving on with times and lags behind other countries a lot in some respects. While many citizens can see the benefits of separating state and religion there is a lot of improvement that needs to be made in many British state institutions. Medical institutions themselves need not just to change but to lead the way when it comes to what must be done in public interest: separation of state and religion.

One cannot underestimate the power within population that has not been used yet to achieve true freedom for British citizens. Liberty requires sacrifices to be made at times and by many but one must never neglect defending it even after it appears to have been won. One only has to look at what happened in different countries that achieved secularism but then failed to defend freedom in times of economic turmoil.

Dr Richard Alexander Scott given warning by General Medical Council

The General Medical Council has today on 14th June 2012 issued a warning to Dr Richard Alexander Scott. This decision will be welcomed by many people (religious and not religious) who are able to distinguish between the human rights of patients and human rights of medical practitioners.

A patient attended his surgery in National Health Service GP practice in United Kingdom and following this consultation a complaint was made by his mother to medical regulator that it distressed him and that there was inappropriate discussion of Christian faith during medical consultation. 

This case is important one because UK has failed to ensure separation of state and religion leading to many problems including loss of lives in other cases. While GMC regulation imposes obligations on medical practitioners to put patients first this has not always happened. European Convention on Human Rights does state the limitations on the rights to religious expression but there are many issues that UK has not sorted out and Dr Scott case illustrates a lot more than this determination.

   

Investigation Committee (Oral hearing)

Dr Richard Alexander SCOTT

11-14 June 2012

3 Hardman Street, Manchester, M3 3AW

Dr Scott:

At this hearing, the Investigation Committee has carefully considered all the material before it, including the submissions made by Mr Hurst on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) and Mr Diamond on your behalf. The Committee has noted and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Committee is aware that it must have in mind the GMC’s duty to act in the public interest, which includes the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. In deciding whether to issue a warning the Committee must apply the principle of proportionality and weigh the interests of the public with those of the practitioner.

This case arises from a complaint made to the GMC on 14 August 2010 by Patient A’s mother about your conduct when her son consulted you on 4 August 2010. The complainant alleged that you abused your position as a medical practitioner to push your religion upon a vulnerable patient. It was alleged that you had belittled Patient A’s religion (which was not Christianity) and emphasised the importance of Christianity, stating that Jesus Christ could cure him.

At the request of the GMC, Patient A provided a written statement, dated 20 October 2010, detailing his recollection of the consultation, on which the factual allegations against you were based.

On 28 February 2011, following the completion of their investigation, the GMC wrote to you in accordance with Rule 7 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 and invited you to comment upon the allegations.
On 25 March 2011 RadcliffesLeBrasseur wrote to the GMC, on your behalf, confirming that you did not accept that all of the individual phrases or words attributed to you were used during the consultation.  It was stated that you had read the GMC’s guidance in Good Medical Practice and the supplementary guidance ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’ and aim to follow that guidance in your consultations. You rejected any notion that the views you expressed were not directly relevant to Patient A’s clinical care and that you would have brought the discussion about faith to an immediate end if Patient A had indicated that he wished the conversation to stop.

RadcliffesLeBrasseur submitted that there was no realistic prospect of a finding of impairment. A limited apology was provided stating that you were sorry, if on this occasion, the consultation had not gone well.
On 28 April 2011, the GMC wrote to you again in accordance with Rule 7 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, and advised you that the Case Examiners had considered the allegations and the supporting information and decided that this was a case which they may conclude with a warning.
In a letter dated 20 May 2011 you wrote to the GMC confirming that you would not accept the warning therefore exercising your right under Rule 11 (3) of the Rules to an oral hearing before the Investigation Committee.
On 26 May 2011 the GMC received information from the National Secular Society which alleged that you had spoken on National media suggesting that your own faith had more to offer than that of Patient A. They provided the GMC with transcripts of two radio interviews in which you participated: The ‘Jeremy Vine Show’ aired on BBC Radio 2 on 23 May 2011 and BBC Radio 5 Live’s “Breakfast” show aired on 25 May 2011.
On 29 June 2011, the GMC wrote to you again in accordance with Rule 7 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, and advised you that the Case Examiners had considered the additional evidence and confirmed that this remained a case that they may conclude with a warning.
In a letter dated 19 July 2011 you wrote to the GMC confirming that you wished to defend your position as a GP who cares for the whole patient, including the spiritual side, and therefore rejected the warning and wished to exercise your right to an oral hearing before the Investigation Committee.
At the opening of this hearing Mr Hurst, on behalf of the GMC, stated that this case did not constitute an attack on the Christian faith. GMC guidance acknowledges the role of faith issues in medical care and the right of doctors to raise such matters within the consultation provided that it is done with the patient’s consent and with sensitivity and respect for any faith they might have. Mr Hurst stated that on this occasion your behaviour in presenting your faith to Patient A had exceeded the boundaries set out in the guidance and, to use his words, “had gone too far.”
The Committee received oral testimony from you and Patient A. Patient A was permitted to give his evidence by telephone following the Committee’s earlier ruling. Patient A was supervised throughout his evidence by a GMC legal representative at the direction of the Committee. You were both subject to cross examination and were asked questions by the Committee. You each provided your own recollection of the consultation of 4 August 2010 and the Committee notes that there is a direct conflict of evidence between the accounts that you each gave of that consultation.
In providing oral evidence to the Committee you made a number of limited admissions during cross examination, but continued to assert that your actions were compliant with GMC guidance. You accepted that if you had acted in the way in which Patient A alleged this would be a significant departure from GMC guidance.

Mr Hurst submitted that it was both appropriate and proportionate to issue you with a warning. He stated that it was in the public interest to issue you with a warning, and that a warning would serve an important role in maintaining public confidence and high standards in the profession. He submitted also that a warning would act as a deterrent, reminding you that your behaviour had fallen below the standards expected and that repetition would likely result in a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

Mr Hurst submitted that your conduct amounted to a significant departure from the principles of Good Medical Practice and associated guidance; in particular paragraphs 33 of ‘Good Medical Practice’ and paragraph 19 of ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’ – supplementary guidance for doctors. He also submitted that your conduct ought to be marked by the issuing of a warning, to lay down a marker as to expected standards and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Mr Diamond submitted on your behalf that your actions were appropriate in that you had acted at all times within these Guidelines; the issue was sensitively discussed and ceased upon request. He submitted further that a degree of deference should be given to an experienced GP who is embedded into the local community, particularly one who has a reputation for the care he provides to his patients.  

Mr Diamond drew the Committee’s attention to a considerable number of letters of support, testimonials and supportive recollections by your patients of occasions when matters of faith had been discussed to positive effect. The Committee noted also two witness statements that spoke of the help that had been received following discussions of faith with you and the regard in which you are held.

Mr Diamond submitted that a warning was neither appropriate nor proportionate.

In considering the facts of this case, the Committee noted that the GMC’s guidance confirms that discussing personal beliefs may, when approached sensitively, help to work in partnership with patients and allow doctors to address a patient’s treatment needs. As such the discussion of religion within consultations is not prohibited and this case relates to the manner in which religion was approached during the consultation with Patient A.

The Committee notes that there is clearly a conflict of recollection of what occurred in the consultation between the participants. In the Committee’s view both witnesses were honest and not trying to deceive. The Committee concluded that the differences were likely to be due to their differing perceptions.

Having made due allowance for the fact that Patient A gave his evidence by telephone and not in person, the Committee considers that it was able to obtain a sufficient impression of his truthfulness from the manner in which he gave his evidence and his response to questions. The Committee consider that Patient A gave credible evidence, direct answers and made all due allowances in your favour.

The Committee considered that while you sought to answer questions truthfully a number of your responses were in conflict with the evidence. Specifically, the Committee noted that it is unlikely that the very full record of the consultation which you made would have omitted mention of the treatment plan if it had been discussed – since this would have happened before the discussion about religion. The Committee regards it as unlikely that the discussion of your faith lasted only two and a half minutes as you contended, bearing in mind the breadth of material covered during your discussion. Furthermore, regrettably, at times you appeared to be evasive when answering questions.

The Committee went on to consider each of the allegations in turn. The Committee notes that you admitted paragraphs 1 to 3, at the outset of your cross-examination, and therefore commenced its consideration at paragraph 4.

Paragraph 4:
    During the consultation of 4 August 2010, you:

Paragraph 4(a):
    “continuously asked Patient A about his religion”
Has not been found proved

During oral testimony it was neither asserted by you nor Patient A that you had continuously asked Patient A about his religion. The evidence presented suggested that the contrary was true and that very little time had been spent on Patient A’s own religion.

Paragraph 4(b) During the consultation, you told Patient A that (or words to the effect that):

Paragraph 4(b)(i):
    “you were not going to offer him any medical help or tests or advice”
Has been found proved

The Committee notes that there is a direct conflict in recollection between yourself and Patient A on this matter. While you stated in your own evidence that you did not tell Patient A that you were not going to offer him any medical help, the Committee considers that Patient A’s account is more probable, since there is no mention in the notes of the medical treatment which you say that you offered.

Paragraph 4(b)(ii):

“you had something to offer Patient A which would cure him for good and that this was his one and only hope in recovery.”

Has been found proved in part

You acceded to the first half of this paragraph during your oral testimony, accepting that you had informed Patient A that you had something to offer which would cure him. The Committee has not found proved that you said that what you had to offer was his one an only hope of recovery as this was not borne out in your testimony or that of Patient A.

Paragraph 4(b)(iii):

“if Patient A did not turn towards Jesus and hand Jesus his suffering, then Patient A would suffer for the rest of his life.”

Has been found proved

The Committee considered that whilst you may not have said the exact words as stated within this paragraph, you did say words to that effect. It was confirmed in both your own testimony and that of Patient A that you had used phrasing similar to that in the allegations.

Paragraph 4(b)(iv):

“his own religion could not offer him any protection and that no other religion in the world could offer Patient A what Jesus could offer him.”

Has been found proved

The Committee considered that whilst you may not have said the exact words as stated within this paragraph, you did say words to that effect. During your testimony you conceded that you had said “you may find that Christianity can offer you something that your current faith can’t” and that you had told Patient A that his faith was not helping him. While you tried to justify your comments by saying that Patient A had walked away from his own religion, the Committee is satisfied that your words were sufficiently similar to find this paragraph proven.

Paragraph 4(b)(v):

“until he was ready to turn to Jesus that he would eternally suffer.”

Has not been found proved

You agreed in cross examination that you told Patient A that he would continue to suffer for a long time if he did not turn to Jesus, but did not talk about eternal suffering. Patient A did not make this claim in his oral evidence. The Committee does not consider that suffering for a long time is sufficiently similar to ‘eternal suffering’ to be able to find this paragraph proven.

Paragraph 4(b)(vi):

“the devil haunts people who do not turn to Jesus and hand him their suffering.”

Has been found proved

During your testimony you accepted that you had made reference to the Devil during the consultation. Whilst you do not accept using the term ‘haunt’ the Committee considers that your words were sufficiently similar to find this paragraph proven.

Paragraph 4(b)(vii):

“when pointing to a large picture frame on the wall, all the happy people he could see in those pictures all used to be addicts like Patient A until they turned to Jesus and now they are cured.”

Has been found proved

Whilst agreeing to the substance of this paragraph you stated that you had not referred to Patient A as an addict, as you do not consider him to be one. The Committee considers that your words were sufficiently similar to find this paragraph proven.

Paragraph 4(c):

“were told by Patient A that he had not come to a doctor to talk about religion and that he had come to the Practice because he was unwell and desperately needed help, or words to that effect.”

Has been found proved

You agreed, during your oral testimony, that Patient A did say this towards the end of the consultation.

Paragraph 4(d):

“told Patient A that you were not offering him anything else because there is no other answer and that he will keep suffering until he is ready to hand his suffering to Jesus.”

Has been found proved

The Committee considered that whilst you may not have said the exact words as stated within this paragraph, you did say words to that effect. You confirmed in your oral testimony that you had said that Patient A’s condition was not amenable to standard medical treatment. This is supported by Patient A’s own testimony.

Paragraph 5:

“You knew or ought to have been aware that your views expressed at 4(b) and 4(d) above:”

Paragraph 5(a):

“were not directly relevant to Patient A's clinical care.”

Has been found proved.

The Committee does not consider that matters of faith are irrelevant to clinical care, and accepts that there are many circumstances in which spiritual assistance is valuable. The Committee noted that you were not Patient A’s GP, that you had not previously met him and that the appointment had been made at the request of Patient A’s mother to consider her urgent concerns about Patient A. The Committee considers that you must have been aware that the manner in which your views were expressed during the consultation were not directly relevant to Patient A’s clinical care at that time.

Paragraph 5(b):

“could potentially cause distress to Patient A.”

Has been found proved.

The Committee notes your oral evidence in this regard, specifically that you accept that you were taking a risk in raising religion in the way that you did. Whilst you perceived that it was you who were bearing the risk, in that the GMC may receive a complaint about your actions, the Committee considers that the true risk of your actions would be that Patient A may be distressed.

Paragraph 6:

Following the consultation of 4 August 2010, you did not arrange any further referral to the local psychiatric services for Patient A.

Has not been found proved.

The Committee accept that you had already referred Patient A to the local psychiatric service on 2 August 2010 and therefore a further referral was not required.

Paragraph 7:

“Your actions and/ or omissions at 4(a), 4(b), 4(d), 5 and 6 above were:

1. inappropriate
2. clinically not in Patient A’s best interests”

The Committee consider that your actions in relation to those elements found proved within 4b, 4d and 5 were both inappropriate and clinically not in the Patient A’s best interest. The Committee consider that you went beyond the limit of such spiritual guidance as would have been appropriate. Your actions caused some distress to Patient A, which was foreseeable. He said that he felt abused. This is plainly inappropriate and not in his best interests.

Paragraph 8:

“On 24 May 2011, you stated on national radio that during the consultation at 2 above you had told Patient A that he may find Christianity offers him something more than his current faith does in his current situation, or words to that effect.”

Has been found proved.

The Committee notes that during cross examination you admitted making the comments, as alleged.

Having made its determination on the facts the Committee went on to consider whether your actions constituted a significant departure from Good Medical Practice and supplemental guidance. Given your own admission that a significant departure would have occurred if Patient A’s recollection was correct, and in exercising its own judgement, the Committee considers your actions do constitute a significant departure.

Furthermore, based on the facts found proved, your actions meet the threshold set out in paragraph 13 of the GMC’s Guidance on Warnings. In the Committee’s view, having taken all the circumstances into consideration, your actions did fall just below the threshold for a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

In the absence of insight and given your strongly expressed views during this hearing the Committee is not satisfied that repetition of the concerns is unlikely. It notes that although this was a single incident, if there had been more the case would undoubtedly have been referred to a Fitness to Practise panel.

We have noted the excellent testimonials presented on your behalf, which speak of the esteem in which you are held and the dedicated care you offer to your patients. Some of them say you did not press your faith on them when they resisted. There have been no previous complaints about you to the GMC.

This case however is different, because on this occasion you caused the patient distress which you should have foreseen. While the allegations relate to what occurred on a single occasion your actions nevertheless constitute a significant departure from the principles in Good Medical Practice. The Committee considers that it is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest for the protection of the reputation of the profession to issue you with a warning.

The Committee directs that the following warning be attached to your registration:

“During a consultation with a patient in August 2010 you expressed your religious beliefs in a way that distressed your patient.

You subsequently confirmed, via National media, that you had sought to suggest your own faith had more to offer than that of the patient.

In this way you sought to impose your own beliefs on your patient. You thereby caused the patient distress through insensitive expression of your religious beliefs.

Your actions were in direct conflict with the GMC’s supplementary guidance: Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice. This states in paragraph 19 that:

‘You must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or views’.

Your actions also contravened Paragraph 33 of Good Medical Practice:

‘You must not express to your patients your personal beliefs including political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.’

Your actions do not meet with the standards required of a doctor. You are hereby formally warned as to your future conduct. Further serious or persistent failure to follow GMC guidance will put your registration at risk.”

This warning will be published on the List of Registered Medical Practitioners (LRMP) for five years and will be disclosed to any person enquiring about your fitness to practise history during that period. After five years, the warning will cease to be published on the LRMP. However, it will be kept on record and disclosed to employers on request, indefinitely.

You will be notified in writing of this decision in the next two working days. That concludes the determination of the Investigation Committee in this case.