GMC Loses to Will Powell

GMC Fails Robbie Powell

The BBC Reported the embarrassing defeat of the General Medical Council yesterday. This is one of a series of defeats suffered by the beleaguered regulatory body.

"Robbie Powell, 10, died of Addison's disease, a chronic but treatable condition affecting the adrenal glands.Robbie's father William Powell, of Ystradgynlais, Powys, had asked the GMC to investigate in 2003.The case brought by Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) will now go to a full judicial review. A GMC spokeswoman has previously said it would be inappropriate for the council to comment ahead of the judicial review.Mr Powell believed there was a "cover-up" by doctors who had allegedly falsified documents relating to his son's care to convince others of their competence.

"Nigel Pleming QC, counsel for the charity, told Mr Justice Davis that is was wrong in law and irrational for the GMC to apply the five-year rule and to say there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the case proceeding in the public interest".

The reaction from the decent side of the medical profession was presented by The Jobbing Doctor as well as Dr John Crippen.

JC stated

"What appalls me even more than the medical mistakes – and God knows they are bad enough – is what followed. It seems that one of the doctors tried to alter the evidence retrospectively, immediately taking himself from the civil to the criminal law. From the coroner’s court up to the European Court Court of Human Rights, justice was neither done, nor was it seen to be done. Despite fighting for ten years, this family was deprived of a remedy"

Mark Shaw QC represented the GMC, Kieran Coonan QC, Mary O'Rourke and Bertie Leigh represented the doctors. AVMA was represented by Nigel Pleming QC and Jeremy Hyam and were instructed by Richard Stein of Leigh Day and Co.

The Assistant Registrar who dealt with Robbie's case was Shaun Moggan.

Mark Shaw QC submitted to the court that the GMC is "only reactive and not proactive". ???!!!!!!. At this point, we truly wonder what the actual function of the GMC is.

The doctors argued that they have been pursued relentlessly. No doctor was remorseful about their role in the death of a small boy. Their predicament now is essentially self inflicted and well deserved. No doctor involved in this case has been able to categorically state that they have been honest. All articles on Robbie Powell can be accessed on Google UK.

We have access to a letter from the CPS dated 17.4.03. It states

“I hope this letter makes it clear that our decision does not imply that the doctors were without fault. In fact the evidence highlights mistakes on behalf of many of the professionals involved in Robbie’s care. They should accept responsibility for the part that their mistakes played in bringing about Robbie’s death.”

The General Medical Council should hang their head in shame. They should be representing those of us who believe in honesty, transparency and decency in the medical profession. As a group of doctors, we apologise to Will Powell and his family for the dysfunctional conduct meted out by our regulatory body. We are embarassed to be associated with a regulatory body that clearly does not protect patients or good doctors.

It is time the doctors in this case made an admission of guilt, apologised unreservedly to the family and stopped practicing medicine. That is the decent thing to do.

AVMA's press release can be accessed here.

"She says that as two newspapers have had the same item of news "there is a clear likelihood/possibility that the GMC Press Office is linked to both".

Subramanian v General Medical Council 2002 detailed the role of the GMC's press office in colluding with the media.

Ground One – Apparent Bias

# Their Lordships first considered the question of apparent bias. The factual background was that this was not the first time that the appellant had been on disciplinary charges before the Committee. The Council did not propose to put that information before the Committee. The events in question had happened 20 years before, and the hearing had been in 1987. Consequently the Committee members knew nothing about those matters. However, on the morning of the second day of the hearing, there appeared in the Daily Mail a conventional court report of the first day's hearing. No complaint is or can be made of that, but it concluded:

"Sri Lanka-born Dr Subramanian denied failing to examine Margarita adequately. In 1987 he appeared before the GMC after five women felt the pain of caesarean births at Billinge Hospital near Wigan, where he was an anaesthetist.

He was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, but not struck off.

The hearing continues."

That passage disclosed information which the General Medical Council had wished to keep from the Committee until they had made their determination in this case.

# In the event, one member of the Committee (Mr Semmons, a lay member) certainly read that article, and another member had glanced at it without having read it. Mr Semmons on arrival at the hearing that morning found himself in the lift with 3 or 4 members of the seven-man Committee, including the Chairman. He told them that the doctor had been "up before" the Committee before. The Chairman informed the Legal Assessor of these bare facts, and Mr Kyte investigated what had happened and considered what to do – whether to halt the proceedings or to carry on. No objection was taken to that course.

# That Legal Assessor then held a private session of the hearing. At that session Ms Neale for the appellant indicated that her client was prepared for the hearing to proceed on the basis that the Committee were to be told some basic facts of the earlier hearing, namely that it had been in 1987, it related to matters which had occurred some 7 years earlier than that, it related to anaesthetics, it came before the Committee on the basis of agreed facts, and the outcome was that Dr Subramanian was admonished. But she wished the reservation to be added:

"For the avoidance of doubt, counsel for the defendant does not regard this clarification as completely remedying the position."

# The parties proceeded on the basis that the hearing would proceed while that agreement was reduced to writing, and then put before the Committee in open session. Before this happened there was a new factor discovered by the legal advisors to the General Medical Council on the 4th day of the hearing, Thursday. This new information appears to their Lordships to be the trigger for the appellant's belated application to stay these proceedings as an abuse of process, an application which they made on the last day of the hearing, after all the evidence had been called. On that day Miss Neale agreed that Ms Tracy-Forster should put an agreed statement of the new information before the Committee:

"As a result of enquiries made, it is right that you know that the press coverage which is referred to in the [original] joint statement came in two forms. The first form was an article in a regional newspaper in the north of the country last week, well before this hearing started. I understand it is highly unlikely that any member of the Committee saw a copy of that publication. The second form is that form which came to our attention on Tuesday, whereby a national newspaper published a story about the opening day of this hearing, and in that story referred to Dr Subramanian's previous appearance before the GMC. Those instructing me have been working hard over the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of how such a thing should happen, which on any event is extremely regrettable.

Our initial suspicion was that it was due to irresponsible reporting, because, as the Committee is aware, the minutes of all previous Committees are in the public domain and therefore the information concerning the 1987 appearance is freely available to the press, through the website and other legitimate sources of information as to GMC documents. The Committee are also aware that the GMC has no power in law to prohibit publication of such material because there is authority to the effect that this Committee is not regarded as a 'court' within the meaning of the Contempt of Court provisions of the law.

Having said that by way of preamble, nevertheless it is right that the Committee should know this. In respect of the Daily Mail we have drawn a complete blank on enquiries. Those enquiries have been channelled both through my instructing solicitors, and with the assistance of your secretary, directly through the GMC Press Office. We are obtaining no response to either telephone calls or emails. It is regrettable, but it is perhaps not entirely surprising. As to how they came by the information and how they decided to publish it, I cannot help the Committee at all.

In respect of the early publication last week I can assist the Committee, although the prosecution's view is that if no member of the Committee saw this publication, this is of limited relevance. But in the interest of you knowing exactly what happened, it is right I should tell you this. It appears, regrettably, that the regional newspaper in question had obtained evidence of the 1987 hearing from their own library. Someone working for the newspaper itself, having obtained the advance notification of this hearing through an agency, telephoned the GMC Press Office to ask what the position was, so far as reporting the previous appearance.

The lady he spoke to, and he gave us a Christian name which has been confirmed as being a name belonging to someone in the GMC Press Office, said to him that she did not know, but would call him back. Then in a subsequent conversation on the same day, when she called him back, she unfortunately told him that it was safe to refer to the previous conviction, or the previous appearance, I should say. Thereafter she faxed him the memorandum of the minutes of that GMC Committee hearing.

That is the full extent of the information that we have been able to elicit as to how the matter came to the attention of the newspaper last week. I am sorry I cannot assist at all in the respect of the Daily Mail of this week. Obviously those matters, as soon as we ascertained them yesterday morning, were communicated directly to Dr Subramanians's legal team."

# By way of comment on the second and fifth paragraphs of that transcript, it is right to say that the Council has presently no legal power to prohibit publication of such material as it is in the public domain, and as bodies such as the GMC have been held not to be courts: see General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation [1983] 3 All ER 426.

# Ms Neale for the appellant sought to stay these proceedings because the Committee, individually and collectively, were tainted by apparent bias. There was no dispute as to the law relating to apparent bias. The rule is set out in Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90: [2002] 2 All ER 353, 370:

"The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger, the two being the same, that the tribunal was biased."

# The test lays proper emphasis on the objective observer being both fair-minded and well informed. To the basic requirement of fair-mindedness is added the need to be properly informed – that is to say that the fair minded observer should know of the protection against miscarriages of justice built into the GMC's established system for the regulation of doctors' professional conduct in England and Wales, where there is in position a long and well-established system with statutory backing, operated by those selected and elected to the task, and supported by a comprehensive appeal system – see Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] Lloyds LR Med 933 (PC) at paras 33-34.

# Ms Neale in her skeleton argument goes considerably further than she had done when seeking a stay in court. She says that as two newspapers have had the same item of news "there is a clear likelihood/possibility that the GMC Press Office is linked to both". Therefore she says the GMC Press Office was "probably … encouraging an act which prejudiced the fair trial" of this doctor. She suggests that at best the giving of the information was "totally irresponsible", and at worst, "malign". In the real world, the answer may more likely lie in ignorance or muddle.

# Ms Neale relied upon the following events. First the reporter, knowing from his employers, the provincial newspaper with its retrieval system, that there had been an earlier hearing and that there was to be another hearing, enquired of someone in the General Medical Council Press Department whether it was "safe" to refer to the earlier appearance and/or conviction. The employee who answered the telephone apparently did not know the answer to the question, and said that she would find out and ring back. The reporter was right to enquire, and the servant of the General Medical Council was right not to answer if she did not know. So she was right to ask someone who she believed to be better informed. Their Lordships do not know precisely what question he was asked, but the answer given reflected the law as it stands today, as the General Medical Council v British Broadcasting Corporation (above) shows, to have answered the question "No, it is not safe" would not reflect the law. It was "safe" to publish that information without permission because it was not a legal wrong. But it was most unfortunate that the caller was not told that the Council hoped that the previous determinations would not be disclosed to ensure that there was no conceivable threat to the integrity of the hearing.

# None of this impinges at all on the question of any actual bias on the part of any Committee member, as Ms Neale makes clear. Only Mr Semmons had read the piece and had expressed himself to be "appalled" by the disclosure. No one has suggested that he was not appalled. He was not to know that the law did not enable the prosecution to prevent such disclosure.

# In this situation, knowledge of the 1987 proceedings came before the Tribunal when it was the clear intention of the Council that they should not. Ms Tracy-Forster made it clear that the Council were "embarrassed" by this, but:

"I do not, on behalf of the prosecution, believe that that additional information increases the likelihood of bias to the fair minded observer. I believe there is no likelihood of bias, regrettable though the publication was."

The Legal Assessor echoed the same theme at the close of his directions to the Committee:

"Unusually in this case, the Committee have heard about a previous appearance by this practitioner before the General Medical Council, in relation to agreed facts that occurred over 20 years ago when he was performing a completely different role it seems, namely that of an anaesthetist. These matters have nothing to do with the decisions that the Committee now has to make, and they should exercise no influence on them at all."

That was a clear and emphatic direction to the Committee members.

# Next, there is nothing to suggest that the person who initiated the question or the journalist who proposed the answer to it had any bias against Dr Subramanian. There seems to their Lordships no evidence that he or she was doing anything other than simply doing his or her job, and the same can be said of everyone connected with the affair. The way that the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council and the General Medical Council itself operate together is explained in R v General Medical Council, Exp Nicolaides [2001] Lloyds LR Med 525 s24:

"the function of the PCC as a panel are separate from those of the GMC as a whole; investigation/presentation and adjudication functions are kept entirely separate and are performed by different people."

# Ms Neale submits that because the General Medical Council Press Office was the source of the assurance that it was safe to publish the previous occasions of serious professional misconduct, so the rule in Nicolaides (above) would not apply. But there is no reason to believe that the General Medical Council Press Office were not operating quite independently of and separately from the Committee.

The Graduate

Finlay Scott Teaching Doctors Good Practice

The General Medical Council who can't organize a decent piss up in a brewery decided that they would start training doctors in ethical issues. And here we are.

"Dr John Jenkins, chair of the GMC's Standards and Ethics Committee, commented: "Following the huge success of Good Medical Practice in Action earlier this year, this is a welcome opportunity to expand on and improve the content of the web zone. There are more challenging situations to help doctors and patients engage with our ethical guidance."

Really? Did anyone hear about this so called success? This from the organization that never follows the advice of the Standard and Ethics Committee and violates the rights of doctors at a faster rate than Guantanamo Bay. But we must give the GMC 10/10 for teaching the entire world about the kinky sex life of GPs and other doctors. Perhaps Good Medical Practice should be renamed as Good Sexual Practice.

Don't Jump Your Receptionist Warns GMC.

The GMC's prized sex lies and video tape case actually culminated in a warning. The GMC spent more than a week on foreplay, the panellists advised proper contraception against placing the doctors medical registration at risk.

"The GMC panel concluded that Dr Kinch's "credibility was damaged" because of "inconsistencies" and "implausibility" in his evidence, but this was "outweighed" by his "remorse, regret and insight"

So essentially, Dr Klinch's defence union told him to " apologise and get the hell outta there". Does "inconsistency" mean "lying" :). Isn't lying under oath a GMC offence. Oh no, it couldn't be a criminal offence could it? Surely, we the doctor didn't fib at the GMC? Perhaps thats forgivable because the GMC lawyers do it every day.

Essentially, the GMC advised Klinch to keep control of his third leg. In order to remind him, that he should not allow his third leg to go walkies, they have placed a warning on his record. So a shag behind the GP bike sheds that no one knows about will probably not be prevented by a warning.

In the meantime, what is the GMC doing about patient safety again? Publicising it and listening to sex cases on the side.

Sunday Times? Influencing the Outcome of a Trial?

The Sunday Times has opened its fat mouth and is discussing their findings. The influence of the media on GMC trials was first argued in Mahfouz. Andrew Wakefield is on trial at the GMC. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

There are no doubts that the media are currently trying to influence the decisions of the panel. Is this fair on the doctor?

Was it too much for Deer and his colleagues to simply have shut up until the trial was over? In our view, Wakefield would never get a fair trial whether he is guilty or innocent.

General Medical Council Is a BIG FAT FAILURE.

During an the post Shipman era, we have monitored the GMC's Fitness to Practise. The GMC essentially is supposed to protect patients. This is what Finlay Scott tells all of us. We noted that it took 10 years to bring Priya Ramanath back to the UK. We ask ourselves what the GMC's International Liaison Team were doing? Dunking their biscuits in tea perhaps? The role of the GMC isn't made clear here. She cannot be found on the online GMC Register at present. We should also note that the GMC kept two suspected terrorists on the GMC Register for about a week.

In an era where most of our colleagues have gone down the steps of the GMC on frivolous charges that do not involve patient safety, we question whether the GMC is functioning properly. The last week has seen them sporting their infamous sex case where they all listened intently while the GPs receptionist described how she could not keep her legs crossed. Did we have to listen to how she was gagging for it? Did we have to listen to her tryst in Paris.

We present an interesting case from our files supplied by some previous doctors who faced the GMC on frivolous charges. The case below is similar to that of Dr Ramanath above. It shows that the GMC simply forgave her and she walked away without a blemish on her career or her name. The doctor injected neat potassium into a patient. The patient died.

In the interim, Dr Prabhu Satya, a junior doctor was struck off for a CV error he made while at medical school. A muslim junior doctor was suspended for writing a letter to Pulse. A second muslim doctor was given a warning for writing a rude email to one of the Royal Colleges. The lady who never seems to give up has been investigated three times and the latest being for a "link" to a public document. The doctor who threatened to bomb the GMC in jest was suspended for one year. We are told today that the GMC have taken up a case against a junior who reported a senior for bullying. The complaint of bullying was dropped, the GMC Assessor Dr Christopher Kelly has used the junior doctor's email [that reported the bullying] as evidence of personality problems [in the junior doctor]. The precedent set here is this, no doctor can report bulling or victimization to the GMC. This is despite the NHS's recommendation of zero tolerance to bullying in the NHS. If bullying is reported, you can be sure the GMC will reverse the allegations onto the doctor. Everyone of course is aware that Remedy UK's request for an investigation into the MMC catastrophe was rejected at the primary stage without any investigation. Junior doctors lives were destroyed and the GMC is quite happy to sit and watch. We raised the case of Dr Helen Bright who was trailed by the GMC for asking a nun not to wear her uniform in front of traumatized patients.

None of these doctors have had " patient safety" concerns. They have though been harassed by the GMC, their careers are now in ruins.

Doctors who seem to neglect patients seem to get away from the guillotine of the General Medical Council. Dr Jarman [of Toth v Jarman] jumped ship and declared himself unable to practice due to an " anxiety disorder related to the GMC". Dr Jarman was successful in his application for voluntary erasure. This is Oxfordshire stated “Dr David Jarman, of Wallingford Road, Cholsey, became the first doctor to duck allegations of serious professional misconduct under new regulations for "voluntary erasure". Dr Jarman failed to give Wilfred Toth a potentially lifesaving injection after he suffered a diabetes-type fit in 1993. The boy later died”.

Are they therefore catching the wrong doctors?

We present the case of a doctor who continues to work in the NHS. The GMC has allowed this doctor to work. We have presented this to show the inconsistent manner in which the GMC acts. Currently, no independent investigation of the GMC's own conduct has been carried out. The malfunctioning organization described by Dame Janet Smith still continues without any accountability. As the public can see, the GMC is not protecting the public. As we always say, the public face of the GMC is different from the private face. While the above doctors are not working in the NHS, the doctor below is in a hospital near you telling us all that if you kill a patient, all is forgiven and if you are politically incorrect, you are given warnings, dragged down fitness to practise procedures and your life is made a living hell.

Doctor faces patient death probe
Jan 29 2002
by Liz Hull, Liverpool Echo

A JUNIOR doctor at a Liverpool hospital could face criminal charges after an elderly woman died when she was given an injection by mistake.

Clare Dobson, 71, of Markfield Crescent, Halewood, died after potassium chloride - the drug used to execute prisoners on death row - was injected straight into her blood stream instead of through a drip. The female medic, who has not been named, has been interviewed by detectives over the blunder.

The university graduate had been working at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital for just six weeks when the mistake happened.

Ms Dobson, a retired cleaner, was recovering from an operation to remove parts of her
pancreas but suffered cardiac arrest after the injection.

Doctors tried to resuscitate the pensioner but she suffered brain damage and died in intensive care on October 1 last year.

Bosses at the Royal launched an internal investigation and ordered the junior doctor not to deal directly with patients. She was not suspended but has since gone through a period of retraining.

Liverpool coroner Andre Rebello said no date had been set for the inquest into Ms Dobson's death because it was the subject of a criminal investigation.He said: "The circumstances of her death are being investigated by the police and the matter is with the Crown Prosecution Service."As yet the CPS have yet to make a decision on whether criminal proceedings should be taken with regard to the events surrounding this death."

A spokeswoman for Merseyside police confirmed they had been called in to investigate.
She said: "A police investigation has been taken place in relation to the death of a 71-year-old
woman at the Royal, following a Home Office post-mortem."A file has now been passed to the CPS and we are awaiting their decision."

From: "McGeorge Sam (RQ6) RLBUHT"
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: FOI Request

Dear

Thank you for your request under section 1a of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.
Regarding your request, please note the Doctor was not named in the
published article and you provided this Trust with the Doctor's name, which
was Dr Shamala Rajalingham.
Under section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, information which relates
to personal data, Dr Shamala Rajalingham's ethnic origin is exempt from
release.
You have already confirmed Dr Shamala Rajalingham did obtain full
registration with the General Medical Council, which was delayed by one year.
I can confirm that Dr Shamala Rajalingham was immediately removed from all
clinical duties within this Trust and underwent a period of retraining and
assessment while investigations were carried out. She recommenced clinical
duties after satisfactory retraining within another NHS Trust.
Please contact us if you have any further questions or queries.
Many thanks,
Sam McGeorge
FOI Co-ordinator
Access to Information Office
Sam.mcgeorge@rlbuht.nhs.uk
0151 706 2677


3rd August 2005. Ref FOI54

Dear

Thank you for your request under section 1a of the Freedom of Information
Act. Answers to your request are as follows: -
1. Dr Ramalingam was referred to the GMC Education Committee by the
Deanery.
2. Dr Ramalingam was not charged by the Crown Prosecution Service.
3. The Dr re-trained under Dr Williams of Halton DGH.

Yours sincerely
Sam McGeorge

FOI Co-ordinator

Two Eyed Scottish Idiots

Running the General Medical Council

So why has the GMC hounded Dr Helen Bright?

Don't Make it a Habit GMC :)

We hope the General Medical Council is reading this because we want them to see how utterly stupid they really are.

We discussed the case of Helen Bright sometime ago. Helen has been immensely critical of the GMC. She also suggested that religion and its attire may cause further trauma in those abused by religious institutions. This was a fair analysis. The GMC though decided to pounce on her from a great height. Her Trust and the GMC have dragged her through the corridors of the General Medical Council.

It is interesting that now the NHS recommends that religion should not be discussed with patients and apparently they could all face the sack if they do.

"A little-noticed document published by the Department of Health last month gives warning that attempts by doctors or nurses to preach to other staff or patients will be treated as harassment or intimidation under disciplinary procedures"

So GMC, can you now apologise to Helen Bright please?

Perhaps Helen Bright should get this document from the Department of Health and shove it under the noses of Finlay Scott and his mates.

Non Doctor Could Be Head of GMC Towers

The mentality of the General Medical Council is all wrong of course. Their public face is rather different from its private face. The way to bring respect to the GMC is for the organisation to face up to the fact that it does not bring cases to hearing that have any impact on patient safety or patient care. The GMC mistakenly believes that if they are seen to bring non medical people into their organisation, it will make it better. Of course, it won't because non medical people understand very little about the machinations of medicine.

'The GMC has become increasingly good at relating to government, health authorities and the public,' said Dr Brian Keighley, former GMC member and chairman of the BMA's working party on the GMC.

Keighley is a man who knows very little about the public. The first thing the GMC should do is boot him out.

The GMC is taking pre-emptive steps to bolster its relations with doctors. It is inviting doctors to compete for one of 25 seats in a new 'reference community' that will replace its patient advisory group.

Sure like rejecting an investigation into the MMC Fiasco supported by nearly 1600 doctors and backed by Remedy UK. The General Medical Council's patient advisory group did nothing but look pretty. That is of course why the GMC is in such bad shape.

We have a few ideas :-

1. Can we fire all the current staff at the GMC and retrain some new ones.
2. Can we fire all the Committee members especially Carol Black and re-elect some decent ones.
3. Can we ensure the employment documents contain a section where workers have to declare their vested interests eg scientology and freemasonry.
4. Can we start having some robust protocols for each section of the investigation
5. Can we fire Toni Smerdon and Juliet Oliver and any other current lawyers because they advise badly.
6. Can the GMC stop being poodle to the government.

After the above and some spring cleaning, we may get somewhere in ensuring that GMC stands for justice. Until then, the public will not respect the General Medical Council at all.

Non-doctor could be GMC chairman
05-Feb-09

Departure of Catto could leave a lay person at helm of GMC for first time.

The GMC is poised to alienate the profession with the real possibility of electing a layman as its new leader.

The new 24-member council, only half of whom are doctors, will vote among themselves for a successor to GMC chairman Professor Sir Graeme Catto, who steps down in June.

The 150-year-old medical regulatory body has never been led by anyone other than a qualified doctor.

'The GMC has become increasingly good at relating to government, health authorities and the public,' said Dr Brian Keighley, former GMC member and chairman of the BMA's working party on the GMC.

'But it recognises itself that it has not been as good at relating with its own constituents - doctors. I don't think it's the time to choose a lay leader when the GMC is eager to enhance its engagement with the profession at a time of great change.'

Choosing a layman would further distance at least eight out of 10 doctors from the GMC, said Bolton GP Dr Krishna Korlipara, a council member for 24 years.

'The profession already feels alienated. This gives out a message that the new GMC doesn't care as long as it does what the government wants.'

GPC Wales chairman Dr David Bailey said: 'I think it's wrong to have a professional regulator led by someone who is not a member of that profession.' But he added that doctors should continue to pay for the GMC.

'I think the disadvantages of having a regulator led by a non-medic do not outweigh the loss of self-regulation if the body is not funded by the profession.'

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, the nursing regulator, is already led by a non-nurse. Its chairman Professor Tony Hazell is a former probation officer and academic.

Professor Peter Rubin, former chairman of the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) and Dr John Jenkins, senior lecturer in child health at Queen's University Belfast are the strongest medical contenders for the leadership.

Sir Rodney Brooke, a lay member, was chairman of the social workers' GMC, the General Social Care Council, from 2002 to 2008.

The GMC is taking pre-emptive steps to bolster its relations with doctors. It is inviting doctors to compete for one of 25 seats in a new 'reference community' that will replace its patient advisory group.

At the initiative's launch last week, Sir Graeme said the GMC was determined to achieve 'better engagement with the profession and particularly the public'.

Love in a GP Surgery

Receptionist's Guide

The GMC have forced all of us to listen to the sordid details of one man's affair with his receptionist. Love in a GP surgery could have been written as a Mills and Boon novel. The entire tale was given to us in soundbites courtesy of the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail told us "Yesterday Mrs B, dressed in a black trouser suit, red blouse and point-toed boots, took the witness stand in the Cambridge-educated GP's defence".

Henry had clearly been too busy swotting in Cambridge and failed to get his leg over. He then made up for it by stripping down Ms B. Do we really have to know about the point-toed boots? Do we really have to be subjected to Henry's dysfunctional love life. Well, we can all see why he had an affair. If any man had to be stuck with the woman in the picture who is apparently his wife, they would all resort to affairs. The wisen faced wife faithfully sat outside GMC Towers making us all believe the woman truly has no self respect. Any decent woman would have left Henry uncontrolled one eyed trouser snake for a more controlled version.

Any GMC registrar in their right mind could have seen that this was not a conflict of interest at all. Why this had to prance through the GMC procedures onto a hearing is anyone's guess. In the meantime, other more valid cases have been denied a hearing. One such case is that of the junior doctors MMC fiasco as defended by Remedy UK.

In summary, there is something about the GMC that makes it always concentrate on sex cases. Patients die left right and centre, junior doctors are mistreated, there is bullying and victimisation in the NHS and the GMC just reads and hears sex cases. Perhaps they don't get enough at GMC Towers.

The Doctors Guide

In a Klinch

None of us like the Daily Mail.

Nevertheless, we noticed this story . Is this the best case in public safety that the GMC can produce? Do we have to be subjected to the sordid details of how this Receptionist could not resist the sex appeal of this GP.

So what happened to patient safety again? Any cases about patient neglect at all?

This GMC loves sex cases. That is all they try from day to day. Patient safety? Patient risk? Patient death? Who cares eh? As long as the GMC sack all doctors who have sex, its obviously fine.