Talk:General Medical Council

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Limited registration

According to news sources, limited registration is set to be abolished. I could not find a good source for this claim on the GMC site. Any ideas? JFW | T@lk 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the GMC

Is it true that the GMC has changed over the years to incorporate various regional bodies that used to perform the functions of the GMC in the various counties? I heard that this was the case and that they all came together under the GMC for the sake of efficient administration.

If this is the case it might be worth noting in the article. Any comments?

15 September 2006.

Dunno. Do you have a source? JFW | T@lk 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The GMC took over the licencing functions previously exercised by a variety of bodies, such as the Society of Apothecaries, the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Surgeons in London and Edinburgh and the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, but did not incorporate them. These bodies continued to regulate their own members and to hold examinations alongside the universities. The GMC used to have branches in Edinburgh and Dublin. At some point in the post-war era the branches were abolished, but a provincial outpost has since been established in Manchester. NRPanikker (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism overload

Various anons have been adding more and more criticism, up to the point that it threatens to overwhelm the article. While I agree there are many - professional and lay - people who have expressed concern about the GMC's functioning, I think we should restrict ourselves to those criticisms that have received wide coverage in the public discourse.

Today someone selectively quoted from the Shipman report that doctors with foreign qualifications have statistically had a higher chance of being investigated by the GMC. This is not a point that has received the public attention that other criticisms have, and I dispute that this point specifically needs inclusion in the article. I do not disagree with the main premise, but to phrase it in the way that it was phrased it suggested that the GMC is a racist body. There are many alternative explanations, including those making complaints being racist (!!), language barriers and true differences in training not intercepted with PLAB. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with but also disagree with JFW. The issue raised in the background to the Smith report, and subsequently is not referral to the GMC but the way in which cases are managed by the GMC - so the first source of bias mentioned (racism in referral) is not applicable.
I personally agree the GMC is probably not racist, but the removed comment did not say this. It is possibly down to class and status (even within the profession) which does align with race. The issue is widely discussed although not amongst the public as you suggest (however I do not think that public discussion is entirely relevant to such an entry - this topic appears in all of the recent issues of BMA news for example, and is currently subject to an enquiry). I do think it wrong to erase this aspect entirely when it is receiving widespread discussion and is one of the main area of criticism facing the GMC. I have thus restored the last comment from anonymous that was erased in part, with more careful language. I also feel that the concept of criticism overload would be appropriate if the GMC was subject to only minor criticism. However, under current circumstances of discussion about the future of the GMC, I feel the balance is appropriate. Other criticisms also be added to balance the type of criticism. The quote from the shipman report was not selective - an entire page of background was devoted to listing various studies which had examined this aspect and concerns had followed from these studies. It would be selective if there had been other studies with different findings which had not been quoted. Orthodave 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removed comment elevated a minor point (that's really not received much media coverage) to something massive. Did it make headlines the same way FTP did? No, certainly not. And I feel simply listing more and more criticisms makes it even more ridiculous. I don't deny the fact-finding of the report but I would like to enforce WP:NPOV on this article.

If you are still adamant this point should be in the article, perhaps a WP:RFC would be useful. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of amount of criticism and balance: Balance depends on the circumstances. Since the GMC is currently subject of a number of unprecedented critical reports balance would be served by allowing mentioning the issues involved.
It is a simple *fact* that the issue of race has been raised repeatedly, subject to at least one enquiry, and is subject to ongoing enquiry. In the interests of balance I have restored the comment using even more balanced language, with a citation from the public media instead of a public report (to satisfy one objection that it is a secret issue). Furthermore, to satisfy another criticism, the citation supports JFW's point of view (the apparent discrepancies in handling of complaints might be due to factors other than race). As the newly cited reference (and the Shipman report) notes, the issue has never been one of differential referral to the GMC, but differential screening and progress of compalints once received. The fact that such differences can be predicted by race is not, and has also never been in dispute and is an acknowledged fact. The only area of dispute is whether this is due directly to race/class, or whether other factors are important. The new citation makes this clear and in a balanced manner. Given the sensitivity and prominence of this, I feel it negligent to erase the fact that the issue of race has generated much concern - if mentioned in a balanced way of course. Orthodave 08:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to retract the use of "negligent" in this context. I have asked for evidence that this issue reached prominence (not all criticism is prominent), and I'm satisfied with the Guardian source. I would ordinarily discourage editors from reinserting the same material until consensus can be reached on the talkpage.

Please also familiarise yourself with the footnotes system and WP:CITE. The article has a notes system, and your additions deviate from this. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial scandal?

Mr Abolish the GMC is back. Now he's got some news that Jennifer Colman is suing members of the council for something. The blog itself has no evidence at all, simply announces that it will appear. The meat is in NHS Exposed[1], a similar site.

Little of this has appeared in the general press, and I think it is disproportionate to mention this here until it has received (much) more coverage in reliable sources. I have removed said content for now, and will request an RFC if moves are made to reinsert it without discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Rita Pal v General Medical Council, Sarah Bedwell and Peter Lynn The case law is on http://www.nhsexposed.com/healthworkers/doctors/gmc/pal_v_general_medical_council.shtml This is the first case of its kind that has been successful in a court of law. Dr Rita Pal was a 28 year old Pre Registration House Officer who raised concerns regarding the substandard care of elderly patients on Ward 87 City General Hospital ( North Staffordshire NHS Trust) in 1998. These concerns were raised internally but shut down. They were then raised in the Sunday Times Newspapers 2nd April 2000 http://www.nhsexposed.com/patients/hospitals/nstaffs/elderly.shtml. The issues were sent to the General Medical Council at the instigation of the Sunday Times journalists Jon Ungood Thomas. Dr Pal was then informed by a committee member that she should get out immediately as the GMC were about to reverse the investigation on her and entrap her into the health procedures. Dr Pal subsequently left compliance with the complaint but asked the GMC to continue with their investigation. The General Medical Council subsequently hired Professor Roderick Griffiths who has been criticised by the BMJ for the Griffiths Report on the CNEP Trials( Professor Southall). Professor Griffiths found no problems on Ward 87 but suggested to the GMC that they investigate Dr Pal. Professor Griffiths and the General Medical Council both failed to obtained two internal hospital reports that verified Dr Pal's concerns. http://www.nhsexposed.com/patients/hospitals/nstaffs/city-general-hospital-report.shtml. These were only disclosed by force at Dr Pal's intigation in 2005. Dr Pal had obtained a copy of the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This report had been concealed from the General Medical Council.

In 2003, Dr Pal submitted a request under the Data Protection Act 1998. She then obtained access to documents within the General Medical Council. They confirmed that the then health screener Sheila Mann had described Dr Pal as intemperate and possibly paranoid. She also described her as a disregarded whistleblower. She admitted in her memos to conducting a " Discreet Inquiry". Dr Pal has never been aware of this so called inquiry. The following had been printed out by Peter Lynn to show potential evidence of mental illness.

1. Postings citing Stephen King as extremely talented author. 2. NHS Exposed www.nhs-exposed.com. Postings criticising the GMC as unfit to regulate. 3. The manner of letter writing advising the GMC that they did not protect whistleblowers.

The GMC had never met Dr Pal and the above was circulated and leaked to Trusts, other websites etc between 2001-2004.

R Pal v General Medical Council was created by Dr Pal and her friend. 26 lawyers said the GMC could never be defeated. Dr Pal then hired Robert Jay QC who edited the particulars of claim and presented her case. The GMC Blake Dobson apologised for the distress caused. The GMC told the court that this was his personal opinion and not theirs. Originally, the GMC had been asked to remove the offending memos. They refused. The case was for breaches in Human Rights, Defamation and Data Protection. The GMC applied for a strike out. The GMC lost. Subsequently, following disclosure of various evidences from North Staffordshire NHS Trust, the GMC settled the case. http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaymercury/news/tm_objectid=16203725&method=full&siteid=50002-name_page.html

The above was not featured in the National papers. The GMC spent in excess of £500K on this case.

Rita, please see WP:COI. You should not under any circumstance be editing this article. You are allowed to post contructive comments here, but I agree with David Ruben that if there has been no media coverage, this may well full below the notability horizon. Let me know if you have any further questions. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rita has been one of the few to succesfully chalenge the GMC. Now at the end of 2014 a huge campaign has been started by others notably Una Coales and John Glasspool who has referred the issue to the police for investigation concerned about the high number of suicided by GPs under investigation by GMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikedness (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

Mr Abolish the GMC returned within a few hours of the {{sprot}} being lifted. He linked to his new petition on the Number 10 website. Naturally, every Tom/Dick/Harry can lodge a petition, so this is not automatically noteworthy. But on a larger scale, this undesirable character needs to get his fingers off the Wikipedia article. I have reinstated sprotection. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Joseph Chikelue Obi. He has flooded his own petition by adding the names of the sitting members of the council, including a rather unflattering description of Graeme Catto. I've made up my mind - this is not going to be on the Wikipedia page. JFW | T@lk 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is revealing... JFW | T@lk 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too Funny! Even the GMC has it's own wiki-stalker. Droliver 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of his pronouncements online (e.g. against the GMC) are so specific I wonder when the GMC will sue him. Some Googling has revealed an interesting picture, such as the "Royal" alternative medicine society that Mr Obi runs. I'm glad we never agreed to include that blog. It's a one-man show. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bodkin Adams

Malick78 (talk · contribs) inserted a full paragraph on a Shipmanesque killer from the 1950s. Oddly, the article makes no reference to the GMC at any point. It was a criminal case from the start. This is really not the place to list casuistry. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

I've chanced unprotection on this page, but it's being watched. Dr Obi is reminded that he has a conflict of interest that disqualifies him from editing this page, see WP:COI. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 July Obi left one of his marks again. I have removed it again; I hope I will not need to release the exact details of the nature of his "conflict" with the GMC. But it's in the public domain. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has discovered the "undo" button. I have discovered {{sprotected}}. JFW | T@lk 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the

interwiki to fr fr:Ordre des médecins is propably wrong, but I am not able to read french.--Ot (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010 updates

I'm aware I've made a few changes here. The article was quite out of date. I'd welcome contributions/ideas.

My inclination is that the 'purpose' section could be renamed 'purpose and governance', with some feel for the governance of the GMC -- its Council and the CHRE. The CHRE is referenced in the reform section, which is quite outdated now. The GMC has made changes to its structure and procedures throughout the last decade. These could be reflected in the governance or history sections.

The revalidation issue mentioned in the reform section is very live but that has its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am telly (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Struck off"

This widely-used term ought to be explained somewhere on WP. Drutt (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a colloquialism for "erasure from the medical register". JFW | T@lk 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and reform

These sections need some work. A lot of it strikes me as incomplete and out of date. I think the way forward may be to merge the history section with criticism and reform, and work chronologically to discuss how the GMC has changed over time, the challenges and criticism it has faced and how it has reacted, and its future plans - e.g. revalidation, fitness to practise reform, etc. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am telly (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Criticism" sections tend to do articles a disservice and almost always lead to NPOV problems. JFW | T@lk 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to read this : " The GMC is not a court, so even if you win, you don’t get any of the costs back, so when the defence bodies defend a case, for them, it is just money down the drain. This gives the GMC carte blanche to accuse anybody they like of Serious Professional Misconduct as they never have to pay for anyone except their own team if they are wrong." which - if proven correct - HAS to be mentioned in the section "criticism" Trente7cinq (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a secondary source to support that allegation, it could be added to a section discussing the fitness to practice process. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margin of appreciation

The following was added:

For a non-legal person, this is complete gobbledygook. These concepts should never serve as opening gambit for a new section. If anything, it should be discussed further down, because the Medical Act seems to predate the acceptance of the European human rights legislation referred to here. JFW | T@lk 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the contributor of the above, how about creating a page on the Medical Act 1983? Current pages are History of medical regulation in the UK and Medical Act 1858 not the actual enabling Act of medical regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.46.19 (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Arai, Yutaka (2002) The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the ECHR. Intersentia, Antwerp, 320 pp. ISBN 9050951953

Composition and size if not actual membership?

Certainly how people get onto the council now should be in the article. It may be less clear than it used to be. The headcount may be worth indicating, also. Midgley (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midgley Agree. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Medical Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on General Medical Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling

Wikipedia should check the paragraph "Emergency driving Gaining registration with the GMC (whether provisional or full) also allows the registrant to fit and utilise green flashing lights to their car.[31][32] Such lights can be used when attending a medical emergency to alert other road users to their presents and intentions.[33]

The word 'presents' should be changed to 'presence'. 92.14.115.219 (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:General_Medical_Council"