Remove "impertinence" concerns (which are unnecessarily 'umble) and its is a
fine letter, well worth sending.

The GMC's action does seem absolutely extraordinary.  I'm sure the College
of Physicians and Surgeons of BC (which has the same role as the GMC, is
very strict but also is confident in its position) would not act in a
similar way.

Does the GMC really have any meaningful future?  If it did, it certainly
must be shakier now.

Jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Leuty" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Dr Bee Case referred on


> On Wednesday 06 Oct 2004 23:52, Dr Fay Wilson wrote:
> > I should think this will produce revolting members of
> > fitness to practise committees
>
> At least you admit that they are revolting.   ;-))
>
> I've not written to my MP about the NPfIT because I can't be bothered,
> but the following is a draft of a letter to Sir Graeme which I will
> probably send after I've re-read it in the cold light of day.
>
>
> "Dear Sir Graeme,
> Re: review of PCC's decision on Dr Bee
> I recognise that I am not in full possession of the facts and I hope
> that I do not seem impertinent, but I am concerned by the GMC's recent
> press release about the PCC's decision on Dr Bee.
> As I understand it, the GMC is now considering whether its PCC should
> have punished Dr Bee by taking away his good name. Such a punishment
> would be a severe blow to an honest and conscientious man, as Dr Bee
> may well be if reports of the testimonials submitted to the PCC are
> accurate.
> Punishment may be for revenge or for deterrence. In a civilised society,
> only the latter motive is acceptable. I thought the PCC's decision was
> fair, and I find it hard to see why finding Dr Bee guilty of serious
> professional misconduct would act as a deterrent to pathologists
> working today.
> I apologise again for any impertinence, but I have a nagging doubt that
> the GMC's decision to invite the CHRE to consider referring the case to
> the High Court for review might have been motivated by a political
> desire to survive by slaking a perceived thirst in the general public
> for barbaric revenge. I would be unhappy about being regulated by a
> body which was prepared to sacrifice the reputation of an elderly
> retired man in order to improve its chances of survival.
> I hope that a member of your staff will be able to reassure me about
> this. I should also be grateful for confirmation that you have taken
> steps to ascertain Dr Bee's emotional wellbeing and to provide him with
> adequate support for the ordeal ahead.
> Yours sincerely,
> Dr G M Leuty."
>
> --
> Michael Leuty
> Nottingham, UK
>