There was the vincristine one. https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/casebook-and-resources/casebook-may-2014/medicine-and-manslaughter …
-
-
Agree ‘promoting and maintaining public confidence’ is on a par with ‘fit and proper person’. But, tbh, I’d say they’re equally undefinable. As a self employed GP I have to be both the above. Similarly vague ‘green socks’ clauses used to be frowned on.http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/finance-and-practice-life-news/partners-increasingly-allowed-to-dismiss-partners-for-wearing-green-socks/20030464.article …
-
You may think so, but many regulators think they've defined it. And it was brutally applied in my world. Fail the test, you could say goodbye to the industry, pretty much. But.. green socks clause?? The partnership equivalent of a nuclear deterrent? What the hell's going on??
-
Does that culture - entrenched within medicine- help you understand my concern that a statutory body is able to define and apply vague concepts at will?
-
I'm not sure that example doesn't say more about the state of relationships in doctor partnerships, than it does about their regulators, tbh. But that aside, I share your concern about such abilities in all medical regulators.
-
Normally (cardie-wearing, typical GP) partnerships are at the benign end of the ‘knife your colleagues for your own professional benefit’ spectrum.
-
The odd inevitable clash of personalities aside, that's what I'd have thought. So why all these clause insertions? What changed? Hardly encourages investment, if you could be ousted in a heartbeat - financial or personal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.