Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I, like Lees (1) was subject to a complaint to the GMC. As Lees notes, the GMC's correspondence to me was belligerent at best. The case had already been subject to a Coroners enquiry and hospital critical incident review. The GMC gave equal weight to the retrospective and subjective ' evidence' given by the complainant to the contemporaneous notes and more independent evidence of the coroner and hospital where I worked.
During the process, which took up to a year to conclude, the GMC employed an 'expert' who had not worked in the NHS for ten years who branded my practice as ' falling significantly short of that which would be expected' . A second report by a medical director in current clinical practice stated that my care was in fact good. The case was then dropped but only because the GMC felt the evidence was not substantial enough to charge me rather than declaring that there was no case to answer. The whole episode made me seriously consider leaving the profession and I have only recently rekindled my love for my career. I have lost all faith in,and respect for,the GMC. How can it be right that cases referred to the GMC are not reviewed, in the very first instance, by anyone with any clinical expertise in a relevant field and this is despite the fact that we are compelled to pay for thIs? Is it right that doctors essentially pay through their GMC fees and MPS subscription for their prosecution and defence? The complainant has nothing to lose and there is no redress. I asked through a freedom of information request, how much the case against me had costed and the request was declined. a complaint I sent to the chief executive of the GMC about my treatment was answered wholly unsatisfactorily by a complaints officer.
1. Lees C. Doctors should be tried by a UK criminal court, not by the GMC BMJ 2013; 347:f6752
Re: Doctors should be tried by a UK criminal court, not by the GMC
I, like Lees (1) was subject to a complaint to the GMC. As Lees notes, the GMC's correspondence to me was belligerent at best. The case had already been subject to a Coroners enquiry and hospital critical incident review. The GMC gave equal weight to the retrospective and subjective ' evidence' given by the complainant to the contemporaneous notes and more independent evidence of the coroner and hospital where I worked.
During the process, which took up to a year to conclude, the GMC employed an 'expert' who had not worked in the NHS for ten years who branded my practice as ' falling significantly short of that which would be expected' . A second report by a medical director in current clinical practice stated that my care was in fact good. The case was then dropped but only because the GMC felt the evidence was not substantial enough to charge me rather than declaring that there was no case to answer. The whole episode made me seriously consider leaving the profession and I have only recently rekindled my love for my career. I have lost all faith in,and respect for,the GMC. How can it be right that cases referred to the GMC are not reviewed, in the very first instance, by anyone with any clinical expertise in a relevant field and this is despite the fact that we are compelled to pay for thIs? Is it right that doctors essentially pay through their GMC fees and MPS subscription for their prosecution and defence? The complainant has nothing to lose and there is no redress. I asked through a freedom of information request, how much the case against me had costed and the request was declined. a complaint I sent to the chief executive of the GMC about my treatment was answered wholly unsatisfactorily by a complaints officer.
1. Lees C. Doctors should be tried by a UK criminal court, not by the GMC BMJ 2013; 347:f6752
Competing interests: No competing interests