Emile de Sousa wrote:
>The GMC has an internal scrutiny group of council members that that looks at
>all the determinations of fitness to practise panels to see if they have
>been properly constructed, outlined proper reasons for the decision, etc. To
>my knowledge it is exceptional (uniquely so) for the GMC to refer externally
>for a CHRP second opinion on one of its own PCC's determinations (though
>they know that the CHRP will be doing this anyway).
>
>Fay- this logic suggests that the GMC itself feels that its ability to reach
>a correct decision is inadequate, and that it is inadequate to correct the
>"error". Why should a body of such staggering inadequacy exist?
>
>
I suppose an alternative view that a body could have would be that it
always reaches the right decision.
Hmm. I don't think I like that one either.
As to the uniqueness - how long has the GMC existed, and how long has it
had CHRP over it? not many opportunities for it to do this, yet.
What I would be interested in is the process that led to the decision,
and whether there was a dichotomy between the lay and professional
members on this.
|