I’ve been around long enough to qualify as a cynical old mare. I imagine a black Muslim female dr who failed in her duty to save a cute white child is doomed in the ‘court of public opinion’. Which the GMC is obliged to take account of, under the euphemism ‘public confidence’
-
-
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @GrumpyOldDoc and
That would almost smack of deferring to mob rule. I sincerely hope there's something more lawfully robust than just appeasing a crowd behind such cases. Especially one as unpleasant as that might imply.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
Doubt there’s any robust legal definition of what “Maintaining Public Confidence” actually is, or should involve.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @GrumpyOldDoc and
Well whatever definition GMC chose to work by, you'd at least like to think they would be applying it uniformly. This suggests they haven't done that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
Unless maintaining uniformity is one of the officially stated priorities, I’m not sure they could prioritise it. They have certain statutory duties. Including ‘protecting public confidence’.http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/regulation/doctors-to-be-scapegoated-under-gmc-fitness-to-practise-plans-says-gerada/20008412.article …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @C7RKY and
Even the BMA was concerned. https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/working%20for%20change/policy%20and%20lobbying/pa-briefgmcorder13-03-2015.pdf?la=en …
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @GrumpyOldDoc and
I'll be honest, what they're objecting to there doesn't read much differently to the definition of 'fit & proper person' I had to adhere to every year in a different regulated environment. Nobody died if someone screwed up in my regulated world, yet similar benchmark.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
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 …
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @GrumpyOldDoc and
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??
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @C7RKY @GrumpyOldDoc and
Normally (cardie-wearing, typical GP) partnerships are at the benign end of the ‘knife your colleagues for your own professional benefit’ spectrum.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @GrumpyOldDoc and
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.