Doctors should be tried by a UK criminal court, not by the GMC

The General Medical Council’s belated realisation that its processes may be too “blunt” is little comfort to those whose lives it has unjustly wrecked.1

Since being the subject of a complaint 15 years ago—of which no charges were proved—I have mentored and provided testimonials for around a dozen doctors referred for health and fitness to practise proceedings. Several themes recur.

Firstly, after referral doctors are presumed guilty until proved innocent. All employers must be told about the referral. Several doctors have had alternative jobs suspended or permanently terminated on hearing of a referral, irrespective of the final disposition. Many are suspended from practice even if the GMC does not suspend their registration.

Secondly, the tone and nature of correspondence to doctors is unhelpful and often hostile. This leads to a sense of paranoia and impending doom in even the most well balanced doctors.

Thirdly, the GMC seems to discipline a greater proportion of doctors than equivalent bodies in the US, Canada, and Europe. it also seems to be the most expensive regulator.

Fourthly, the GMC allows itself to be the conduit of internecine disputes between colleagues, or doctors and their employers, at whose conclusion the wronged party is rarely encouraged to redress the balance. This further ingrains disputes between different parties. For such disputes, if there is no direct patient risk or complaint, a mediated dispute resolution service would be preferable.

My observations lead me to conclude that it would be far better for doctors to be tried in a UK criminal court, with the inherent safeguards that have grown up over several centuries, than in the sketchily regulated courts convened by the GMC and its successor the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.