-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dr Fay Wilson
Sent: 07 October 2004 18:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dr Bee Case referred on
I'll try Julian. Remember I am just the messenger! If you shoot me there may
be no more messages.
1. Dr Bee is accused of charges which in the opinion of the GMC's lawyers
may, if proved, amount to SPM
2. Dr Bee admits several charges including that his conduct was unacceptable
and that it was not of a standard expected of a consultant pathologist. GMC
withdrew one other charge.
3. PCC finds charges admitted and found proved
4. PCC notes Dr Bee accepts he did not adhere to the RCPath guidelines from
1993 re PM reports plus a few other things.
5. PCC took account of a Privy Council appeal and decided professional
misconduct but having regard to the Privy Council findings in that appeal
(see previous) decided not Serious Professional Misconduct
6. GMC decides this may be too lenient a view and invites CHRP to consider
whether to refer on for High Court (the CHRP automatically looks at all PCC
cases anyway).
This is the train of events as I understand them. I am not a lawyer and have
never sat on the PCC. I am not a member of the GMC nor in the confidence of
the top people. I have had information from the press office because I
contacted them to tell them about the disquiet among colleagues and seeking
information. Presumably because I am one of their fitness to practice
chairmen they have been extra helpful.
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). This may have been an
attempt to forestall criticism but the consequences for retaining the
confidence of the profession remain to be seen.
I hope this is clear enough though a bit too long probably.
Best wishes
--
Fay
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?
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 05/10/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 05/10/2004
|
