What would happen if, in view of the Shipman report and the new
requirements to quiz relatives about whether they think the GP might
have done their relative in, *no-one* was prepared to do a Part 2?
If even identifying (and reporting) the problem can land you in front
of the GMC, is the current fee worth the work and risk?
If it isn't worth the risk ( there is no obligation, as far as I know)
to do a part 2 on a cremation) , will it be possible to get anyone
cremated...?
They spotted the pattern: reported it to the appropriate authorities who
investigated and told them there wasn't a problem.
*Why* are they in the dock?
MaryH
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Paul
Bromley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Lunchtime News today - serious misconduct because they signed the Part 2s
>and did not spot the murders. There for the grace of ...... etc.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Paul Bromley
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trefor Roscoe
>Sent: 31 August 2004 13:38
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Shipman Fallout.
>
>Paul Bromley wrote:
>> All GPs should down tools on this unless the charges are dropped
>> against these GPs. They are no better or worse than the rest of us on
>> Part 2s - just had the bad luck of having Shipman in the same town.
>> Maybe we should all refuse to do Part 2s now?
>>
>>
>> Does the fault not lie elsewhere?? A simple database system at the
>> Registrars would have surely shown a large 'blip'
>>
>> I feel very sorry for the GPs who are going through this - the GMC
>> are making them into scapegoats surely?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>
>Not sure what you are referring to here Paul, have the other GPs in Hyde
>been dragged before the GMC??
>
>Trefor
--
Mary Hawking
|