[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>I agree that the GMC has failed to protect the public and failed to
>police 
>medicine properly. 

I don't follow that argument.

They have dealt with a complaint by striking off one doctor - the
public are now protected against him.
A third, about whom the complaint related only to a specific variety of
surgery, is forbidden to perform that surgery for a period - the public
are now protected against him.

As for policing medicine, that is not really the task of the GMC.
They sit in judgement, and promulgate rules and advice, but it is up to
other members of the profession, at the point where doctors fall from
the standard required, to pass omn the complaints for action.

The doctor most notable for failing to do so when in a position where
it was clearly his duty, and he was being _paid_ to do so, was struck
off - the public are of course not protected from him continuing to
mismanage matters since he was not practicing medicine, however one
might expect any subsequent employer to take note of it in his CV...

There are a few heads to go, and no less important to my mind, but they
are not vulnerable to the GMC since they are non-medical managers, and
political and civil service figures.
I do not see that the non-medical regulatory mechanisms have yet
engaged with them (if we exclude May last year) or if they have done so
it has not been done in a fashion which informs the public they have
been protected.

However the public enquiry might throw some light on them.

I do not fancy an organisatin whcih combines the roles of police,
investigating and arresting, and court, although I know this is more
accepted in France.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%